Page 3 of 4
Cognitive Bias in OHS Investigation: The Biasing Power of Source Identity
Respondents self-identified their group membership at the start of the activity and the number of years they had worked with the safety agency. Twenty of the respondents self-identified as Public Safety and twenty identified as Other. Three respondents identified themselves as Industry. These three individuals have been excluded from the presentation of the findings below, as there is little informational value in such a small sample size. The 40 investigators whose data are presented had been in their current investigative role with the agency for an average of 5.47 years (SD = 5.11).
Materials and Methods
A subject matter expert (SME) helped the lead author develop and refine the materials for the investigation activity. The SME had 29 years of experience in police investigations, followed by 8 years in OHS investigations.
Respondents began the activity with an overview of a fatal incident that had occurred in a remote location. They learned that they were in the role of Primary Investigator (PI), with two investigating officers reporting to them. Both officers had equivalent years of investigation experience, but one of the officers had a public safety background and the other had an industry background.
Participants then read the event summary about a boom boat which is used in logging operations. “This boom boat began taking on water,” the event summary read. “The boat operator radioed for help. The boat sunk shortly after the distress call. It is believed that an excess amount of water in the bilge caused the boat to sink. The boat operator perished in the event.” A photo of the boat accompanied the summary.
Respondents then chose the next best step in the investigation from two options that addressed why there was excess water in the bilge, one offered by the Public Safety officer and one offered by the Industry officer. The two options were of equal value as a next step. To ensure that the identity of the officer—rather than the content of the option—was driving the results, the options were counterbalanced so that half of the participants received the first option from the Public Safety officer and half of the participants received the same opinion from the Industry officer, and vice versa for the second opinion. The final step of the activity was to answer the manipulation check questions, which asked respondents to identify the background of the two investigating officers, the type of event (e.g., near miss, fatality or severe injury) and whether they were familiar with this type of event.
This article originally appeared in the September 2024 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.