Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35342331›Full record

ArticleInformation systems frontiers : a journal of research and innovation2022

On the Interplay of Data and Cognitive Bias in Crisis Information Management: An Exploratory Study on Epidemic Response.

David Paulus, Ramian Fathi, Frank Fiedrich, Bartel Van de Walle, Tina Comes

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Information systems frontiers : a journal of research and innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David PaulusDepartment of Multi-Actor Systems, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5719-3849
Ramian FathiInstitute for Public Safety and Emergency Management, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.
Frank FiedrichInstitute for Public Safety and Emergency Management, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany.
Bartel Van de WalleUNU-MERIT, United Nations University, Boschstraat 24, 6211 AX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tina ComesFaculty of Technolgy, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands.
Delft University of Technology · NLUniversity of Wuppertal · DEUnited Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humanitarian crises, such as the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, challenge information management and thereby threaten the digital resilience of the responding organizations. Crisis information management (CIM) is characterised by the urgency to respond despite the uncertainty of the situation. Coupled with high stakes, limited resources and a high cognitive load, crises are prone to induce biases in the data and the cognitive processes of analysts and decision-makers. When biases remain undetected and untreated in CIM, they may lead to decisions based on biased information, increasing the risk of an inefficient response. Literature suggests that crisis response needs to address the initial uncertainty and possible biases by adapting to new and better information as it becomes available. However, we know little about whether adaptive approaches mitigate the interplay of data and cognitive biases. We investigated this question in an exploratory, three-stage experiment on epidemic response. Our participants were experienced practitioners in the fields of crisis decision-making and information analysis. We found that analysts fail to successfully debias data, even when biases are detected, and that this failure can be attributed to undervaluing debiasing efforts in favor of rapid results. This failure leads to the development of biased information products that are conveyed to decision-makers, who consequently make decisions based on biased information. Confirmation bias reinforces the reliance on conclusions reached with biased data, leading to a vicious cycle, in which biased assumptions remain uncorrected. We suggest mindful debiasing as a possible counter-strategy against these bias effects in CIM.

Indexed as

Cognitive biasCrisis information managementData biasDigital resilienceEpidemicsMindfulness

Identifiers

PMID35342331
PMCPMC8938164
OpenAlexW4221055895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.