Abstract:Objective: Across two experiments, we examined three cognitive biases (order effects, context effects, confirmatory bias) in licensed psychologists' diagnostic reasoning. Hypotheses: Our main prediction was that psychologist-participants would seek confirming versus disconfirming information after forming an initial diagnostic hypothesis, even given multiple opportunities to seek new information in the same case. We also expected that individual differences would affect diagnostic reasoning, such that psychologists with lower (vs. higher) cognitive reflection tendencies and larger (vs. smaller) bias blind spots would be more likely to demonstrate confirmatory bias. Method: In Study 1, we recruited 149 licensed psychologists (M = 18 years of experience; 44% women; 71% White) and exposed them to one of four randomly assigned vignettes that varied order effects (one set of symptoms in reversed orders) and context effects (court referral vs. employer referral). They rank ordered a list of four possible initial diagnostic hypotheses and received a piped follow-up choice of which of two pieces of information (confirmatory or disconfirmatory) they wanted to test their initial hypothesis. Study 2 (n = 131; M = 21 years of experience; 53% men; 68% White) replicated and extended Study 1, following the same procedure except offering three sequential choice opportunities. Results: Both studies found robust confirmatory information seeking: 92% sought confirmatory information in Study 1, and confirmation persisted across three opportunities in Study 2 (90%, 84%, 77%), although it lowered with each opportunity (generalized logistic mixed regression model), F(2, 378) = 3.85, p = .02, ηp² = .02. Conclusion: These findings expand a growing body of research on bias in expert judgment. Specifically, psychologists may engage in robust confirmation bias in the process of forming diagnoses. Although further research is needed on bias and its impact on accuracy, psychologists may need to take steps to reduce confirmatory reasoning processes, such as documenting evidence for and against each decision element. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises

Confirmation bias emerges from an approximation to Bayesian reasoning

Confirmatory information seeking is robust in psychologists' diagnostic reasoning

Deliberation, mood response, and the confirmation bias in the religious belief domain.

A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks

Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias

Personal Values and Cognitive Biases

Moderate confirmation bias enhances collective decision-making in reinforcement-learning agents

Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias)

Does Interference Between Intuitive Conceptions and Scientific Concepts Produce Reliable Inter-individual Differences? A Psychometric Analysis

Convergent Validity of Experimental Cognitive Tests in a Large Community Sample

Confirmation Bias through Selective Use of Evidence in Human Cortex

Mathematical models of confirmation bias

The biasing effect of common method variance: some clarifications

The self-bias in working memory: the favorability of self-referential stimuli in resource allocation

Two forms of minority-group test bias as psychometric artifacts with an animal model (Rattus norvegicus).

Complementary benefits of multivariate and hierarchical models for identifying individual differences in cognitive control

A measure of reliability convergence to select and optimize cognitive tasks for individual differences research

The Ambiguous Cue Task: Measurement reliability of an experimental paradigm for the assessment of interpretation bias and associations with mental health

Two components of individual differences in actively open-minded thinking standards: myside bias and uncertainty aversion