ReviewFrontiers in psychology2021
The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals' Decision-Making: A Review of Four Occupational Areas.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychological Factors That Contribute to the Use of Video Consultations in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Defining physician-AI collaboration in pulmonary and critical care medicine: concepts and illustrative examples for clinical reasoning.ATS scholar · 2026Article
- Improving detection of colorectal cancer: A Bayesian approach to serial circulating tumour DNA testing following curative-intent treatment.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Training in anterior and posterior zirconia cantilevered resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: design and educational outcomes.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The debiasing paradox: cognitive biases in judicial adjudication of valuation adjustment mechanisms across Chinese and American courts.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The field situation heuristics effect in online emergencies: the formation mechanism and differences of audience cognitive bias.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Cross-linguistic patterns of cognitive biases in large language models: a comparative study in English, Hebrew, and Russian.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Article
- Overestimating the Self, Outranking the Group: An Experimental Study of Overconfidence Biases in Young Decision-Makers.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- What does Dr Google tell us about tendinopathies? An Italian analysis of online content.Pain management · 2025Article
- Perioperative Anesthetic Considerations in HMG-CoA Lyase Deficiency: Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Nature-Based Healing Industry in South Korea: A Q Methodology Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Biased and Biasing: The Hidden Bias Cascade and Bias Snowball Effects.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Students' perceptions of knowledge reinforcement on indirect prosthetic dental material choices by a translational approach.Journal of dental education · 2025Article
- Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Review
- Vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: Draw on experience.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- How Reframing Affects Confidence in Complex Decisions: Evidence from Behavioral Measures and Decisional Styles.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing judges' use and awareness of cognitive heuristic decision-making.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The author reviewed the research on the impact of cognitive biases on professionals' decision-making in four occupational areas (management, finance, medicine, and law). Two main findings emerged. First, the literature reviewed shows that a dozen of cognitive biases has an impact on professionals' decisions in these four areas, overconfidence being the most recurrent bias. Second, the level of evidence supporting the claim that cognitive biases impact professional decision-making differs across the areas covered. Research in finance relied primarily upon secondary data while research in medicine and law relied mainly upon primary data from vignette studies (both levels of evidence are found in management). Two research gaps are highlighted. The first one is a potential lack of ecological validity of the findings from vignette studies, which are numerous. The second is the neglect of individual differences in cognitive biases, which might lead to the false idea that all professionals are susceptible to biases, to the same extent. To address that issue, we suggest that reliable, specific measures of cognitive biases need to be improved or developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.