论文标题
关于危机信息管理中数据和认知偏见的相互作用 - 关于流行病的探索性研究
On the interplay of data and cognitive bias in crisis information management -- An exploratory study on epidemic response
论文作者
论文摘要
人道主义危机,例如2014年西非埃博拉病毒流行,挑战信息管理,从而威胁到响应组织的数字弹性。危机信息管理(CIM)的特征是尽管情况不确定,但仍应做出紧迫感。加上高风险,有限的资源和高认知负荷,危机容易引起分析师和决策者的数据和认知过程的偏见。当偏见在CIM中未经检测和未经处理时,它们可能会根据偏见的信息做出决定,从而增加反应效率低下的风险。文献表明,危机反应需要通过适应新的和更好的信息来解决最初的不确定性和可能的偏见。但是,我们对自适应方法是否减轻数据和认知偏见的相互作用知之甚少。 我们在探索性的三阶段实验中对流行反应进行了研究。我们的参与者是危机决策和信息分析领域的经验丰富的从业者。我们发现,即使检测到偏见,分析师也无法成功地获得DEBIA数据,并且这种失败可以归因于低估的辩论努力,以支持快速结果。这种失败导致开发了传达给决策者的有偏见的信息产品,因此他们基于偏见的信息做出决定。确认偏见加强了对有偏见的数据得出的结论的依赖,导致了恶性循环,其中偏见的假设仍未纠正。我们建议对CIM中这些偏见效应的可能性进行挑剔。
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.