Misreporting signs of child abuse: The role of decision-making and outcome information

Five psychological mechanisms that might bias learning from neurosurgical complications: case discussions and a narrative review

PURPOSE

The ability of neurosurgeons to analyze and reflect on their complications in a constructive way is important both for professional development and for patient safety. The purpose of the present paper is to highlight some psychological factors that might impair or bias the ability of the neurosurgeon to do this successfully.

METHODS

Five fictitious cases, loosely inspired by real events and situations, are used as a basis for a discussion of some of the most important potential sources of psychological bias in the context of understanding neurosurgical complications.

RESULTS

The issues of a) self-serving bias and the actor-observer effect; b) heuristics and biases in interpreting probabilistic events; c) emotional avoidance and denial; d) limitations of attention (dual systems theory) and e) errors of memory, are discussed.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of psychological factors, that are well known to science that may be ubiquitous sources of influence on the ability of neurosurgeons to grow by reflection on their own complications. Exactly how these factors can and should be efficiently adressed by the individual neurosurgeon and/or the organisation and team in which the neurosurgeon works may vary according to type of bias, context and circumstances. However, being aware of these issues and addressing them on an individual and organizational level remains important to the quality of our craft.

Choice-Supportive Misremembering: A New Taxonomy and Review

Although the literature on the influence of memory on decisions is well developed, research on the effects of decision making on memory is rather sparse and scattered. Choice-supportive misremembering (i.e., misremembering choice-related information that boosts the chosen option and/or demotes the foregone options) has been observed in several studies and has the potential to affect future choices. Nonetheless, no attempt has been made to review the relevant literature, categorize the different types of choice-supportive misremembering observed, and critically appraise the existing evidence and proposed explanations. Thus, starting from a new theoretically motivated and empirically grounded taxonomy, we review the current research. Our taxonomy classifies choice-supportive misremembering into four conceptually distinct types: misattribution is when information is attributed to the wrong source, fact distortion when the facts are remembered in a distorted manner, false memory when items that were not part of the original decision scenarios are remembered as presented and, finally, selective forgetting is when information is selectively forgotten. After assessing the impact of various potentially moderating factors, we evaluate the evidence for each type of misremembering and conclude that the support for the phenomenon is solid in relation to misattribution when recognition memory is assessed, but significantly weaker for the other three types, and when other memory tests are used to assess memory. Finally, we review the cognitive and emotional explanations proposed for choice-supportive misremembering in the light of the available evidence and identify the main gaps in the current knowledge and the more promising avenues for future research.

Hindsight Bias and Law

Abstract. Hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate the foreseeability of an outcome once it is known. This bias has implications for decisions made within the legal system, ranging from judgments made during investigations to those in court proceedings. Legal decision makers should only consider what was known at the time an investigation was conducted or an offense was committed; however, they often review cases with full knowledge of a negative outcome, which can affect their judgments about what was knowable in the past. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on hindsight bias and law. We present five areas of law that hindsight bias affects (medical malpractice, forensic investigation, negligence, patent, criminal), two types of evidence that may lead to hindsight bias (visual and auditory evidence), and hindsight bias in experts and judges. Finally, we discuss strategies for reducing hindsight bias in legal decisions and recommend future research.