ArticleScientific reports2025
Debiasing training reduces confirmation bias in national risk analysts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
State risk forecasts are crucial for allocating resources to address international and domestic threats such as war, pandemics, and climate change. These risk forecasts largely rely on human judgment, which is often susceptible to cognitive biases. We conducted an experiment involving the majority of national risk analysts in a European country and a matched sample of masters students to compare their susceptibility to confirmation bias and bias blind spot in judgments related and unrelated to national risk. Additionally, we evaluated the effectiveness of a one-shot debiasing training intervention across both samples. We find that analysts exhibit less confirmation bias than students within and outside risk-related judgments. Crucially, a one-shot debiasing training session reduced confirmation bias in both analyst and student groups. These findings suggest that cost-effective debiasing interventions can improve expert judgment in national risk forecasting and provide evidence that experience and expertise reduce cognitive bias more broadly than previously recognized.
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.