Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference
- PMID: 38522052
- DOI: 10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4
Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference
Abstract
Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that humans frequently diverge from rational decision-making processes due to the pervasive influence of cognitive biases. This paper conducts an examination of the impact of cognitive biases on high-stakes decision-making within the context of the joint pediatric cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery conference, offering practical recommendations for mitigating their effects. Recognized biases such as confirmation bias, availability bias, outcome bias, overconfidence bias, sunk cost fallacy, loss aversion, planning fallacy, authority bias, and illusion of agreement are analyzed concerning their specific implications within this conference setting. To counteract these biases and enhance the quality of decision-making, practical strategies are proposed, including the implementation of a no-interruption policy until all data is reviewed, leaders refraining from immediate input, requiring participants to formulate independent judgments prior to sharing recommendations, explicit probability estimations grounded in base rates, seeking external opinions, and promoting an environment that encourages dissenting perspectives.
Keywords: Cognitive bias; Decision-making; Judgment; Surgery conference.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest/ competing interests to disclose. Ethical Approval: This is a review article with no human subjects and thus ethical approval was not required.
References
-
- Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan
-
- Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:207–232 - DOI
-
- Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A (1996) Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: a critical examination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:212–219 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
