On the Interplay of Data and Cognitive Bias in Crisis Information Management

An Exploratory Study on Epidemic Response

Journal Article (2022)
Author(s)

David Paulus (TU Delft - Multi Actor Systems, TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

Ramian Fathi (Bergische Universität Wuppertal )

Frank Fiedrich (Bergische Universität Wuppertal )

Bartel Van de Walle (TU Delft - Policy Analysis, United Nations University - Institute for New Technologies - UNU-INTECH)

Tina Comes (TU Delft - System Engineering, TU Delft - Transport and Logistics)

DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10241-0 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2022
Language
English
Issue number
2
Volume number
26
Pages (from-to)
391-415
Downloads counter
320
Collections
Institutional Repository
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Humanitarian crises, such as the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, challenge information management and thereby threaten the digital resilience of the responding organizations. Crisis information management (CIM) is characterised by the urgency to respond despite the uncertainty of the situation. Coupled with high stakes, limited resources and a high cognitive load, crises are prone to induce biases in the data and the cognitive processes of analysts and decision-makers. When biases remain undetected and untreated in CIM, they may lead to decisions based on biased information, increasing the risk of an inefficient response. Literature suggests that crisis response needs to address the initial uncertainty and possible biases by adapting to new and better information as it becomes available. However, we know little about whether adaptive approaches mitigate the interplay of data and cognitive biases. We investigated this question in an exploratory, three-stage experiment on epidemic response. Our participants were experienced practitioners in the fields of crisis decision-making and information analysis. We found that analysts fail to successfully debias data, even when biases are detected, and that this failure can be attributed to undervaluing debiasing efforts in favor of rapid results. This failure leads to the development of biased information products that are conveyed to decision-makers, who consequently make decisions based on biased information. Confirmation bias reinforces the reliance on conclusions reached with biased data, leading to a vicious cycle, in which biased assumptions remain uncorrected. We suggest mindful debiasing as a possible counter-strategy against these bias effects in CIM.