Management Decision Making Processes

Introduction:

Maximum of the human behavior is considered as decision making and so designed and affecting those decision-making processes can be regarded as a component associated with the process of behavior change. According to Dunbar et al. (2013), a number of researches has been conducted on the failures of the decision making process compared to that of the success in the decision making. Decision making is sometimes a deviation from what is considered as the rational choice. The particular genre of the research on decision making is focused on understanding heuristics and biases arose in the case of decision making under uncertainty, for example the common assessment of probability. However, due to the broader social implications of the uncovered effects the study has evolved only in the field of behavioral economics and presently it has gained attention in politics and other fields of study (Heath et al. 2013).

Cognitive bias is defined as the essential systematic bias present in the outcome of the decisions taken by the people, which is a result of the application of heuristics, inference mechanisms or rule of thumb and the simple strategies along with the short cut for the decision making. In order to provide an example it can be said that, in a unfamiliar city during evening if someone is looking for a place to eat a quicker heuristics will compel the person to go to a restaurant that seems popular while a detailed heuristics will take into account gathering more detailed information about the restaurants in the city and then comparing their distances, prices etc (Croskerry et al. 2013).

Attribute substitution in various forms are associated with a number of heuristics. Such as when people are faced with two difficult questions, they often try to answer the easier one. For example when a company doctor is faced with questions about his or her patients like how long will it take for the patient to cure? And how is the patient is responding to the treatment? The doctor will definitely answer the second question (Park et al. 2014). Therefore the judgment is leaded by a heuristic when an individual evaluates a specific target attribute for the judgment object substituting the other property of that object - that comes more easily in our minds.

The two cognitive systems:

Some of the common heuristics and biases which are associated with the process of behavior change are stated below, but before that it is necessary to get acquainted about the two cognitive systems. According to Reilly et al. (2014), the present researches on the cognitive psychology assume that the brain function follows a dual process model. It means that when a decision is taken there are two processes working. The purpose of using the term psychologists is to differentiate between the associative and quick cognitive operations from the other which are rule-governed and slow.

There are differences between the characterizations of the two systems within the researchers. However, almost all the researchers agreed on a point that distinctions between these processes are unconscious, high capacity and rapid and those which are conscious, slow and calculated. Croskerry et al. (2013), termed these two systems as System 1 and System 2 while Blumenthal-Barby and Krieger (2014) termed these systems as Intuitive Systems and Reflective Systems respectively for System 1 and System 2. At the same time McLaughlin et al. (2014) coined terms for these systems as Automatic and Reflective. Other terminologies are also available in this regard.

According to the study conducted by Croskerry (2014) reflects that System 1 yields quick responses concerned with the judgment problems while they arise. On the other hand System 2 looks after and controls the quality of those proposals that it may override or endorse. That judgment which is called intuitive they remain with the hypothesized initial proposal without broader modifications. The differentiation between the System 1 and System 2 are also parallel with the peripheral and central route to persuasion theory as proposed by Petty and Cacioppo. Croskerry (2014), suggests that there are computational analogies associated with the different types of computational processes. The System 1 is considered as associative one and its computational activities depicts the similarity and temporal structures while the System 2 is symbolic in nature and the computations involved with this process depicts a rule of structure (Payne and Patel 2014). Therefore when a response in yielded by only the associative system we only take into account the result of the computation not the process while on the other hand one is aware of both the computation and the process in the case of a rule-based computation (Magid et al. 2016).

According to Berkwitt and Grossman (2014), heuristics and biases are the result of interplay between the Automatic System and the Reflective System. However, these are the result of when the Reflective System does not complement the intuitive judgments yielded by the Automatic Process.

Designing the Implications: Countering and Exploiting Heuristics and Biases:

In the context of designing, at least up till now the debate over these two systems does not matter largely. The question that essentially arises is that what can usefully be learned from the study and practice of heuristics and cognitive biases from the viewpoint of their practical implications and influence over the individual behavior (Hilbert 2012). A lot of studies have been conducted in this regard in order to find out the suitability of heuristics and cognitive biases in the designer model. This is broadly the concept and overview of the cognitive bias and heuristics.

Now the report will turn to the case that what are the cognitive biases and heuristics involved with a company doctor. For this instance the exposure to a particular chemical is the reason of a specific respiratory disorder among the employees (Zwaan et al. 2016). If a doctor encounters a patient with such a disorder but the doctor is not sure whether it is because of the chemical or something else. Then it is quite difficult for the doctor to determine where he or she should assign the patient with a bed. If the doctor assigns the patient in a respiratory ward it may be useful for the patient but if the problem is mainly because of the exposure to chemical it will not be useful for the patient or the patient may be affected by a hospital infection. On the other hand, sending the patient to a respiratory section will in turn increase the cost of treatment as well as may reduce the care needed for that particular kind of diseases (Schmidt et al. 2014).

Now the question is how the doctor will solve this problem and the deal with the critical decision making process as well as the dilemma involved in this process. For the emergency room situation stated above there are various ways that are dedicated to solve the problem and these approaches come from different sectors of the decision science (van den Berge and Mamede 2013).

According to van den Berge and Mamede (2013), the first approach to deal with the problem is to leave all the responsibilities to the doctor. In most of these cases it has been observed that the doctor has sent the patient to a respiratory care unit. This process has increased the cost of treatment and also overcrowded the respiratory ward (Croskerry 2014). There is a second approach as well that deals with a complex algorithm that can be used for solving this kind of complex problems.

There may be a respiratory disease detection system which will contain a chart of 50 probabilities and logistics regression that in turn enables the doctor to determine where the patient should be admitted only by using a pocket calculator. However, it is also a matter of fact that, only a few physicians understand the use and application of algorithms and they will definitely leave the calculator whenever the researcher leaves the hospital (Toplak et al. 2016).

The third approach to deal with this problem is to teach the physicians to use effective heuristics. Now in this case a heuristics is defined as the decision making process that focuses on the few very relevant aspects and ignores the rest of the factors while making a decision. Adeponle et al. (2015), developed an efficient heuristics for the allocation of treatment. This is the heuristics of fast and frugal that involves a number of simple questions of yes and no. Specifically, if the patient is diagnosed with the presence of any chemical inside their body then the patient will be sent to respiratory ward. No other information will be considered and evaluated. If no chemical is detected in the patient’s body then a second variable will be considered such whether the primary complaint of the patient was breathing problem or not (Elia et al. 2016). If it is not, then the patient will be classified as a patient with lower risk and will be assigned with a general nursing bed, if the answer of this question is yes, then a third variable will be considered to deal with this case. Therefore this heuristic approach of decision making for the medical practitioners, turn out to be an efficient one. It has also reduced the rate of wrong decision making while it considered only a few information used in the respiratory disease detection system (Crowley et al. 2013).

Views of rationality:

The everyday life is completely occupied with the decision making process it includes what to diagnose, which stocks to invest in, what to eat etc. The question is how these decisions are made and how these decisions should be taken. In the genre of decision science the answer of these two questions are dependent on the rationality of the human beings (Marewski and Gigerenzer 2012). There are three view on human rationality, these are explained one by one below,

Unbounded Rationality:

The study associated with unbounded rationality is concerned about the question that if the people were omniscient in nature, that is if they could see their future with the knowledge they already have, how would they behave like and how they should behave. The models of optimization and the theory of Bayesian Inference and the theory of maximizing expected utility consider this view (Chapman et al. 2013). It states that when judging an individual should take into account the variables such as whom to treat, these models are also assumed to evaluate all the available information, weight each of the available information on the basis of certain criterion and then combining all the assorted pieces to increase the chances of attaining their goals efficiently and perfectly (Phang et al. 2015). There is sub branch of this optimization process named as optimization under constrains, this model refers to the situation when the model does not assume the availability of every knowledge and considers certain constraints like cost of incurring information. Optimization models are mostly used in the field of economics as well as computer science (Phua and Tan 2013). The spirit of the optimization model is also reflected in the respiratory disease predictive system, which is a regression equation that calculates the optimum beta weights.

Irrationality: Cognitive bias and illusions:

As per the second view, the reasoning of human beings could not be characterized by optimization process but by the systematic dispersion from the process of optimization. This is also termed as the cognitive illusions, irrationality and sometimes simply as errors. The model of heuristics and bias framework states that systematic errors are committed by men while judging probabilities and conducting the process of decision making (Moritz et al. 2015).

Biological rationality: quick What's more cheap heuristics

There is, however, an elective to streamlining and silliness. Several about thousand diary articles (and a few years) in front of the heuristics-and-biases custom got popular, Vuori and Vuori (2014), the father tan about the thing that will be known as those limited reasonability view, pushed that streamlining will be infrequently could reasonably be expected in the true world, and Therefore a hypothesis of reasonability necessities on ponder how individuals decide The point when streamlining will be out of span (Lucchiari and Pravettoni 2012). As opposed to relying on unlikely streamlining models and striving with figure ideal results provided for task, so he argued, individuals utilization basic strategies, trying results that are adequate with admiration to an organism's objectives. He also pushed that conduct Also execution effect from both discernment and an organism's earth “Human normal conduct technique”.

For instance, same time physicians' choices with be deliberately predisposition towards erroneously relegating solid patients of the coronary consideration unit, these choices could truth be told make seen as ecologically rational, similarly as the accompanying court trial illustrates. According to Msaouel et al. (2014), over the year 2003 a gang doctor done Virginia, USA, might have been sued a direct result he required educated a tolerant over the pros Furthermore cons from claiming PSA (prostate-specific antigen) tests, As opposed to barely requesting particular case. Provided for that there will be no confirmation that those test can additional great over harm, he needed trailed those proposals from claiming heading therapeutic associations Also educated as much patient, whereupon whatever remains of the Lewis et al. (2014) declined with detract those test. The tolerant later formed a hopeless manifestation of prostate cancer; also Dredla and Freeman (2015) might have been sued. Those jury during the court excused him, anyhow discovered as much residency subject to $1 million. Then afterward that, Dredla and Freeman (2015) felt he required no decision other than to over diagnose. What's more over treat patients significantly toward those hazards from claiming making unnecessary hurt. This may be precisely what a larger part of us Doctors appear to be with do: 93% for In 800 surgeons, obstetricians, different masters toward high hazard for case accounted hones from claiming recommending a symptomatic test alternately medication that is not the best choice for those patient (Vick et al. 2013). Be that person that protects those doctors against the tolerant likewise An possibility plaintiff, including, to instance, unnecessary CT scans, biopsies, Furthermore MRIs, What's more additional antibiotics over therapeutically shown. Similarly, in the country Michigan healing facility talked about above; from claiming something like 90% of the patients who were eluded of the coronary consideration unit, main harshly 25% really required. A myocardial localized necrosis for such situations the place hazard about being sued is helter. Assuming that tolerant is erroneously diagnosed or treated likewise sound. Furthermore the place medical practitioners try to Abstain from possibility lawsuits, it is ecologically normal to them should take after the preventive heulandite “error on the sheltered side,” being overcautious Furthermore prescribing that's only the tip of the iceberg symptomatic tests what’s more medicines over essential (Vick et al. 2013). This preventive heulandite will be not the same concerning illustration an nonsensical thinking lapse or a cognitive illusion, initiated by individuals' mental restrictions. Yet all the unequivocally due to this, Concerning illustration we will talk about next, there is room for change: Eventually Vick's perusing evolving the environment, Doctors could make prompted depend for heuristics that are a greater amount gainful of the tolerant (Vick et al. 2013).

There would separate sets of components that assistance individuals to pick around those heuristics. The primary relies on the workings from claiming fundamental cognitive capacities, for example, memory  those transaction of these capacities for nature's domain makes for each heulandite a cognitive corner for which it camwood be connected. For instance, those recurrence Also recently for which we have encountered majority of the data over our nature's domain impacts the thing that majority of the data we remember, what's more entryway fast we recall it (Lucchiari and Pravettoni 2012). The thing that majority of the data goes of the mental stage, what's more entryway rapidly it lands there, thus determines the thing that heuristics are appropriate to fathom provided for undertaking. A second set about instruments to selecting heuristics incorporates social and singular Taking in procedures that might aggravate individuals more inclined should decide one pertinent heulandite again an additional. Importantly, by evolving nature's turf people camwood make prompted depend for separate heuristics. For instance, on situations for an easier danger of continuously sued, doctors might depend around distinctive restorative heuristics. Clinched alongside Switzerland, the place suit will be (Lucchiari and Pravettoni 2012), just 41% from claiming general professionals Also 43% for internists accounted for that they frequently suggest a PSA test to lawful motivations.

Secret word Scrutinize around fast-and-frugal heuristics

Comparing models of heuristics need been mulled over to different domains, including connected ones, for example, enforcing pro-environmental conduct or determining customers' exercises Previously, business, and also in the essential sciences, going from creature conduct technique of the law, finance, or brain science toward those same time, an amount for heuristics for extremely distinctive assignments need been proposed: heuristics for mate search, inferences regarding politicians (Lucchiari and Pravettoni 2012). In the connected world, heuristics bring been used to predict, to example, those execution of stocks, those conclusions for sports competitions, alternately those comes about political voting.

Heuristics clinched alongside wellbeing care?

In spite of the science about fast-and-frugal heuristics need off should settle on an effect in the therapeutic community those heuristics-and-biases viewpoint even now dominates as about today for instance, Lucchiari and Pravettoni (2012), alludes all the on heuristics. Similarly as “mental shortcuts regularly utilized previously, choice making that camwood prompt faun thinking or conclusions” citing them as An wellspring for Numerous errors in clinical thinking.

A percentage therapeutic researchers, however, remember the possibility of fast-and-frugal heuristics on enhance choices. Rather, the objective if make to formalize Also get it heuristics so that their use camwood a chance to be adequately taught, which Might prompt Vuori and Vuori (2014) act variety What's more proficient restorative forethought. Similarly, Dredla and Freeman (2015) state that “The next wilderness will include fast-and-frugal heuristics; guidelines to patients Also clinicians alike. On the thing that follows, we will examine distinctive approaches previously, which those investigation from claiming heuristics could illuminate therapeutic choice making.

How professionals What's more patients decide.

Previously, according to Dredla and Freeman (2015), restorative choice making and beyond, those science from claiming fast-and-frugal heuristics concentrates once in any event three fundamental inquiries. The 1st address may be descriptive: the thing that heuristics would doctors, patients, also other stakeholders utilize on make decisions? those second address is nearly interrelated for the Initially one, and bargains for biological rationality: on what natural structures is An provided for heulandite adapted—that is, done which situations can it perform well, and to which does it not? The third address concentrates ahead useful applications: By what means would those consider of individuals' repertory from claiming heuristics Also their fit to Ecological structures help choice making?

The study starts with those spellbinding inquiry about how professionals Also patients decide. Here, fast-and-frugal heuristics contrast starting with traditional, information-greedy models of restorative choice making, for example, such that needed utility maximization, Bayesian inference, or logistic relapse (Msaouel et al. 2014).

How Doctors settle on symptomatic choices will be possibly modeled toward fast-and-frugal trees, an extension of heuristics that expects choice makers to take after an arrangement for consecutive steps former will arrive at a choice (Lewis et al. 2014). Such trees ask main a couple yes-or-no inquiries and consider a choice following every offering on that one. Like the vast majority other heuristics, fast-and-frugal trees are fabricated around three rules; one that tags On what heading data look extends in the scan space (search rule); one that specifies The point when majority of the data hunt may be ceased (stopping rule), and one that tags how those definite conclusion is made (decision rule). Done their general form, fast-and-frugal trees might be summarized as takes after:

Look rule: find predictors in the request about their imperativeness.

Ceasing rule: prevent hunt Likewise quickly similarly as one predictor variable permits it.

Choice rule: arrange as stated by this predictor variable.

Fast-and-frugal trees would described Toward those restricted number from claiming exits they have; best a couple predictors could be gazed up, Be that as they will dependably prompt a choice. For instance, the heulandite demonstrated done figure 1 speaks to particular case such fast-and-frugal tree with four exits. Specifically, a fast-and-frugal tree need n + 1 exits, the place n will be those number of double predictor variables. Clinched alongside comparison, more information-greedy methodologies bring a lot of people more exits; Bayes' rule, to example, camwood a chance to be speaking to as a tree for 2n exits (Vick et al. 2013). Opposite on the more information-greedy approaches, fast-and-frugal trees aggravate themselves productive by presenting request — which predictors need aid the A large portion essential ones?

Educating help simple, transparent heuristics with doctors camwood also assistance them on finer get it wellbeing statistics, that is, those majority of the data ahead which educated restorative diagnoses Also medicine choices ought further bolstering make based. Unfortunately, there is confirmation that A large number doctors don't think how should effectively translate such facts. To instance, Vick et al. (2013) offered 160 gynecologists the detail necessary for figuring that a lady for sure breast tumor screening mammillary body really need cancer: a affectability about 90%, An false-positive rate of 9%, Also An pervasiveness for 1%. The Doctors were required what they might tell a lady who tried certain over her possibilities about hosting breast tumor.

The best reply will be regarding 1 crazy of 10 women; the outcomes to those remaining crazy about need aid false alarms (false positives). Concerning illustration it turns out, 60% of the gynecologists accepted that 8 alternately 9 crazy about 10 ladies who tried certain might need cancer. Furthermore 18% possibilities that the possibilities were 1 clinched alongside 100 (Vick et al. 2013). A comparable absence of understanding around medical practitioners need been news person in diabetes counteractive action studies, “that assessment also different therapeutic tests furthermore medicines (Lewis et al. 2014). Settling on wellbeing facts transparent could help doctors to see all of them. You quit offering on that one Verwoerd basic heuristic, for instance, may be will progress those scientific arrangement On which the applicable numbers would quell.

On showing this, think about the instance of mammogram screening yet again. It will be not difficult should educate-in Doctors to interpret those provided for probabilities under what may be known as regular frequencies also will draw a relating tree with visualize the numbers (Lewis et al. 2014). Likewise every last one of medical practitioners must do may be to consider 1000 ladies. Ten of these ladies would require to bring breast tumor (= 1 % prevalence). From claiming these 10 women, 9 will test sure (= 90% sensitivity). Of the 990 ladies who don't bring cancer, harshly 89 will at present test certain (= 9% false certain rate). When the configuration might have been transformed will such common frequencies, practically of the gynecologists (87%) comprehended that 9+89 = 98 will test certain. From claiming these 98, best 9 will really bring breast cancer, equaling harshly 1 crazy from claiming 10 (= 10%) (Vick et al. 2013).

Conclusion:

Now in order to conclude it can be said that the study has effectively addressed the cognitive biases and heuristics involved with a company doctor. While the doctor is treating a patient who is the victim of respiratory disorder because of certain chemical emissions from the company factor it involves a number of factors and the doctor is faced with a severe dilemma. Therefore it has been observed that in this case and the other cases as well the use of heuristic method of decision making is the most useful one. While conducting the study a broad review of the related literatures in this regard has been conducted and this has helped to gain a better knowledge about this concerned field of study. With the light of the knowledge gained in this regard has helped the researcher to address the issues associated with the study.

Reference List:

Adeponle, A.B., Groleau, D. and Kirmayer, L.J., 2015. Clinician reasoning in the use of cultural formulation to resolve uncertainty in the diagnosis of psychosis. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 39(1), pp.16-42.

Berkwitt, A. and Grossman, M., 2014. Cognitive bias in inpatient pediatrics.Hospital pediatrics, 4(3), pp.190-193.

Blumenthal-Barby, J.S. and Krieger, H., 2014. Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making A Critical Review Using a Systematic Search Strategy. Medical Decision Making, p.0272989X14547740.

Chapman, E.N., Kaatz, A. and Carnes, M., 2013. Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of general internal medicine, 28(11), pp.1504-1510.

Croskerry, P., 2014. 33 Clinical Decision Making. Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care: Volume 2: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, p.397.

Croskerry, P., 2014. Bias: a normal operating characteristic of the diagnosing brain. Diagnosis, 1(1), pp.23-27.

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G. and Mamede, S., 2013. Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ quality & safety, 22(Suppl 2), pp.ii58-ii64.

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G. and Mamede, S., 2013. Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ quality & safety, pp.bmjqs-2012.

Crowley, R.S., Legowski, E., Medvedeva, O., Reitmeyer, K., Tseytlin, E., Castine, M., Jukic, D. and Mello-Thoms, C., 2013. Automated detection of heuristics and biases among pathologists in a computer-based system.Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(3), pp.343-363.

Dredla, B. and Freeman, W.D., 2015. Ehrlichia Meningitis Mimicking Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage A Case Study for Medical Decision-Making Heuristics. The Neurohospitalist, p.1941874415596743.

Dunbar, N.E., Wilson, S.N., Adame, B.J., Elizondo, J., Jensen, M.L., Miller, C.H., Kauffman, A.A., Seltsam, T., Bessarabova, E., Vincent, C. and Straub, S.K., 2013. MACBETH: Development of a training game for the mitigation of cognitive bias. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 3(4), pp.7-26.

Elia, F., Aprà, F., Verhovez, A. and Crupi, V., 2016. “First, know thyself”: cognition and error in medicine. Acta diabetologica, 53(2), pp.169-175.

Heath, L., Tindale, R.S., Edwards, J., Posavac, E.J., Bryant, F.B., Henderson-King, E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y. and Myers, J. eds., 2013.Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

Hilbert, M., 2012. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological bulletin, 138(2), p.211.

Lewis, P.J., Ashcroft, D.M., Dornan, T., Taylor, D., Wass, V. and Tully, M.P., 2014. Exploring the causes of junior doctors' prescribing mistakes: a qualitative study. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 78(2), pp.310-319.

Lucchiari, C. and Pravettoni, G., 2012. Cognitive balanced model: a conceptual scheme of diagnostic decision making. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 18(1), pp.82-88.

Magid, M., Mcllvennan, C.K., Jones, J., Nowels, C.T., Allen, L.A., Thompson, J.S. and Matlock, D., 2016. Exploring cognitive bias in destination therapy left ventricular assist device decision making: A retrospective qualitative framework analysis. American Heart Journal, 180, pp.64-73.

Marewski, J.N. and Gigerenzer, G., 2012. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 14(1), pp.77-89.

McLaughlin, K., Eva, K.W. and Norman, G.R., 2014. Reexamining our bias against heuristics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(3), pp.457-464.

Moritz, S., Mayer-Stassfurth, H., Endlich, L., Andreou, C., Ramdani, N., Petermann, F. and Balzan, R.P., 2015. The benefits of doubt: cognitive bias correction reduces hasty decision-making in schizophrenia. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(5), pp.627-635.

Msaouel, P., Kappos, T., Tasoulis, A., Apostolopoulos, A.P., Lekkas, I., Tripodaki, E.S. and Keramaris, N.C., 2014. Assessment of cognitive biases and biostatistics knowledge of medical residents: a multicenter, cross-sectional questionnaire study. Medical education online, 19.

Park, D.B., Dobson, J.V. and Losek, J.D., 2014. All that wheezes is not asthma: cognitive bias in pediatric emergency medical decision making.Pediatric emergency care, 30(2), pp.104-107.

Payne, V.L. and Patel, V.L., 2014. Enhancing medical decision making when caring for the critically ill: the role of cognitive heuristics and biases. InCognitive Informatics in Health and Biomedicine (pp. 203-231). Springer London.

Phang, S.H., Ravani, P., Schaefer, J., Wright, B. and Mclaughlin, K., 2015. Internal Medicine residents use heuristics to estimate disease probability.Canadian medical education journal, 6(2), p.e71.

Phua, D.H. and Tan, N.C., 2013. Cognitive aspect of diagnostic errors. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 42(1), pp.33-41.

Reilly, J.B., Ogdie, A.R., Von Feldt, J.M. and Myers, J.S., 2013. Teaching about how doctors think: a longitudinal curriculum in cognitive bias and diagnostic error for residents. BMJ quality & safety, 22(12), pp.1044-1050.

Schmidt, H.G., Mamede, S., Van Den Berge, K., Van Gog, T., Van Saase, J.L. and Rikers, R.M., 2014. Exposure to media information about a disease can cause doctors to misdiagnose similar-looking clinical cases. Academic Medicine, 89(2), pp.285-291.

Toplak, M.E., West, R.F. and Stanovich, K.E., 2016. Real?World Correlates of Performance on Heuristics and Biases Tasks in a Community Sample.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

van den Berge, K. and Mamede, S., 2013. Cognitive diagnostic error in internal medicine. European journal of internal medicine, 24(6), pp.525-529.

Vick, A., Estrada, C.A. and Rodriguez, J.M., 2013. Clinical reasoning for the infectious disease specialist: a primer to recognize cognitive biases. Clinical infectious diseases, 57(4), pp.573-578.

Vuori, N. and Vuori, T., 2014. Comment on “Heuristics in the strategy context” by Bingham and Eisenhardt (2011). Strategic Management Journal,35(11), pp.1689-1697.

Zwaan, L., Monteiro, S., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J., Howey, B. and Norman, G., 2016. Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups. BMJ quality & safety, pp.bmjqs-2015.

The No. 1 assignment writing help provider in the United Kingdom, MyAssignmentHelp.co.uk is now better than ever. With the custom assignment writing services, 24x7 online support and 4000+ in-house PhD writers MyAssignmentHelp.co.uk now offers you unparalleled assignment help which will not only save you from hours of hard work but will also ensure you achieve the academic milestones which you have always dreamt of.