Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40858766›Full record

SynthesisNature human behaviour2025

Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students.

Ghassani Swaryandini, Jessica Graham, Shantell Griffith, Vasco Grilo, Federica Ruzzante, Xingruo Zhang, Siu Kit Yeung, Marta Mangiarulo, Geetanjali Basarkod, Clarence Ng and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

16 authors.

Ghassani SwaryandiniSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4362-8650
Jessica GrahamSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9650-2792
Shantell GriffithSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6893-6807
Vasco GriloFrente Animal, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0359-9824
Federica RuzzanteMoMiLab Research Unit, IMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-0232-905X
Xingruo ZhangILR School, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-1959-3127
Siu Kit YeungDepartment of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5835-0981
Marta MangiaruloSchool of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7995-3717
Geetanjali BasarkodInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3708-2751
Clarence NgInstitute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2976-1762
Philip ParkerInstitute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4604-8566
Jason TangenSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0649-2566
Alexander SaeriSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9254-0300
Emily GrundyMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4059-0311
Peter SlatteryMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6083-378X
Michael NoetelSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. m.noetel@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6563-8203

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resistance to cognitive biases is a crucial element of rationality that influences judgement and decision-making. Here we synthesized the effects of debiasing training in educational settings. Our systematic review found 54 randomized controlled trials consisting of 383 effect sizes and 10,941 participants. Our meta-analysis of educational interventions showed a small, yet significant, improvement in reducing the likelihood of committing biases compared with control conditions (g = 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.39), 160 effects from 41 studies, P < 0.001). Most studies focused on reducing the likelihood of committing biases (for example, confirmation bias) using cognitive strategies. Some biases seemed difficult to overcome (for example, representativeness heuristic), and questions remain about the depth and transferability of learning beyond classroom settings. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias and there was some risk of publication bias. While evidence suggests that educational interventions can reduce bias on targeted tasks, more research is needed to determine whether these improvements translate to meaningful changes in real-world decision-making and to identify which paedagogical approaches are most effective for reducing the influence of cognitive biases.

Indexed as

CognitionDecision MakingStudentsBiasHumansJudgmentRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40858766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.