SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:su-206843"
 

Search: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:su-206843" > Cognitive bias and ...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Cognitive bias and attitude distortion of a priority decision

Svenson, Ola, 1939- (author)
Stockholms universitet,Kognitiv psykologi,Decision Research, USA
Lindholm Öjmyr, Torun, 1962- (author)
Stockholms universitet,Personlighets-, social- och utvecklingspsykologi
Appelbom, Sophia (author)
Karolinska Institutet
show more...
Isohanni, Freja, 1987- (author)
Stockholms universitet,Personlighets-, social- och utvecklingspsykologi
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2022-06-08
2022
English.
In: Cognitive Processing. - : Springer Nature. - 1612-4782 .- 1612-4790. ; 23:3, s. 379-391
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • The resource saving bias is a cognitive bias describing how resource savings from improvements of high-productivity units are overestimated compared to improvements of less productive units. Motivational reasoning describes how attitudes, here towards private/public health care, distort decisions based on numerical facts. Participants made a choice between two productivity increase options with the goal of saving doctor resources. The options described productivity increases in low-/high-productivity private/public emergency rooms. Jointly, the biases produced 78% incorrect decisions. The cognitive bias was stronger than the motivational bias. Verbal justifications of the decisions revealed elaborations of the problem beyond the information provided, biased integration of quantitative information, change of goal of decision, and motivational attitude biases. Most (83%) of the incorrect decisions were based on (incorrect) mathematical justifications illustrating the resource saving bias. Participants who had better scores on a cognitive test made poorer decisions. Women who gave qualitative justifications to a greater extent than men made more correct decision. After a first decision, participants were informed about the correct decision with a mathematical explanation. Only 6.3% of the participants corrected their decisions after information illustrating facts resistance. This could be explained by psychological sunk cost and coherence theories. Those who made the wrong choice remembered the facts of the problem better than those who made a correct choice. 

Subject headings

SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Psykologi (hsv//swe)
SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Psychology (hsv//eng)

Keyword

motivated reasoning
cognitive bias
time saving bias
planning policy
medical efficiency
psykologi
Psychology

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view