Page 4 of 4
Cognitive Bias in OHS Investigation: The Biasing Power of Source Identity
It was predicted that respondents would show bias by choosing the option offered by the investigator with the same background as themselves (i.e. Public Safety or Industry). Too few Industry investigators responded to test how their responses differed from the Public Safety Investigators.
Results
Respondents were biased by the identity of the officer providing the information but not as predicted. For clarity, if investigators made their judgments based solely on the evidence— regardless of the source—the results would show a relatively consistent pattern of choice for the two next-step opinions offered.
Rather, respondents preferred the option offered by the officer with the industry background (26/40 investigators or 65 percent) over the officer with the public safety background (14/40 investigators or 35 percent). This preference for the option offered by the industry investigator occurred regardless of the background of the respondent doing the activity. Discussions with the full investigation group after the activity confirmed that the Industry investigators have considerable credibility within the investigation team because of their nuanced understanding of work systems.
Conclusion
This shows how a contextual feature of the decision-making environment, the identity of the person providing the information, biased the judgments of professional OHS investigators. Recall that bias is the systematic deviation from what an impartial assessment of the evidence would support.
This finding of bias is important because it shows that a biasing context can be subtle and still affect choice. In the activity, the credibility of the two officers giving opinions to the PI was relatively comparable. In real-world decision-making, however, it is easy to imagine how a more extreme context could significantly obfuscate quality decision-making. Imagine, for example, a sub-optimal opinion from a high credibility source, or superior ideas from a less than desirable employee.
Professional investigators work hard to make the best possible judgments to improve the well-being of individuals in the workplace. To combat the subversive effect of context on decision-making, investigators are urged to be diligent and engage the “slow” system of thinking, to accept that context may bias their judgments without their awareness, and to take steps to mitigate bias. Investigators who incorporate bias management into their decision-making can collectively move the needle on workplace safety and provide more meaningful improvements to the lives of those in the workplace.
This article originally appeared in the September 2024 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.
About the Authors
Dr. Carla MacLean's (she/her) academic work explores the theoretical issues underlying expert decision making and cognition and applies them to investigative environments. Her publications and presentations cover topics such as cognitive bias, context management, witness memory and effective interviewing techniques. Through her collaborations, research and consulting work with practitioners, she strives to develop real-world solutions for professionals in the field. Dr MacLean is a full-time faculty member in the Department of Psychology at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia, Canada, located on the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Katzie, Semiahmoo, Tsawwassen, Qayqayt, and Kwikwetlem Nations. She is a regular presenter at both professional and academic conferences internationally. Email: [email protected].
Surveer Boparai (she/her) is an undergraduate student in psychology at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia, Canada. S. Boparai’s academics and research to date has focused on memory, mental health and mindfulness, and the influences of context on behavior and decision-making.