ArticleBMC psychology2026
Cognitive biases in military intelligence analysis: amplification mechanisms and intervention strategies in the digital-intelligent era.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe digital-intelligent era, characterized by information explosion, algorithmic penetration, and multi-tasking pressure, has reshaped the information processing environment for intelligence analysis. In high-stakes military scenarios, interactions between cognitive biases and technical factors drive intelligence judgment errors, with profound impacts on battlefield outcomes and national security. Existing studies lack systematic analysis of how digital-intelligent technical characteristics amplify these biases and in-depth discussion of cognitive psychology-based targeted intervention strategies. This study aims to explore typical cognitive bias manifestations across the cognitive process of intelligence analysis, reveal technical amplification mechanisms, construct an “individual-technical-organizational” three-dimensional model, and propose targeted intervention strategies to enrich relevant research and improve intelligence judgment accuracy.
methodsA multi-strategy qualitative research design was employed, including case analysis and inductive theory-building based on case findings. Nine typical intelligence failure cases were selected for qualitative coding analysis. Cognitive psychology theories guided the construction of the “technical environment—cognitive process—bias amplification—judgment error” framework, verified via case cross-validation. Coding reliability was evaluated using the Kappa coefficient.
resultsCognitive biases permeate the entire cognitive process from perception to decision-making, forming chain reactions. Digital-intelligent factors amplify biases through mechanisms such as cognitive resource scarcity, cognitive anchor solidification, and reduced cognitive processing depth. Bias formation and amplification result from the interaction of individual, technical, and organizational factors. The comprehensive strategy is proposed to provide a targeted approach to mitigate bias impacts based on the three-dimensional model and case analysis insights.
conclusionsThis study enriches the digital-intelligent era cognitive psychology theoretical system by revealing the interaction mechanism between technical environments and cognitive biases. The three-dimensional model and intervention strategies provide a new perspective for military cognitive bias research and universal reference for high-stakes military decision-making. Future research will verify strategy effectiveness through longitudinal tracking and controlled experiments.
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.