Within most corporations good decisionmaking can be facilitated by appropriate policies and

Table of Contents

Within most corporations, good decision-making can be facilitated by appropriate policies and procedures. However, even when combined with well-intentioned and competent people, such policies and procedures may not be enough to ensure those good decisions are made. When it comes to making decisions, people are unable to do so while simultaneously noticing whether their decision is predicated on bias thoughts, which derives from our culture and experiences. Thus, understanding our implicit bias – what causes it, how it impacts decision making and what can be done to moderate it is essential if we are to close the gap between the ideals we aspire to have and reality.Henningsen & Henningsen (2004) discuss their theory on how an individual’s decision making is affected differently compared to a group setting. Their hypothesis claimed that shared information and unshared information would generate a biased decision from people who needed cognition, social status, and or suffers from communication apprehension.A test comprised of ten different groups consisting of eight members that would review a fictitious lawsuit. However, these groups were informed they would review a real case and would receive unshared information; half of the group were given documents that supported the plaintiff, and the documents for the other half supported the defendant. After the groups had come together and decided, each member participated in a survey based on the three areas believed to influence bias decisions. The results of the test supported all but one of the hypotheses. Individuals that needed a high level of cognition have a bias towards shared information as well as members who seek social acceptance. Which means they will leave out vital information to be accepted by a group of people. As for communication apprehension, this hypothesis was proven wrong. Sukhera, Milne, Teunissen, Lingard, & Watling, (2018) present their theory that individuals and learning environments will produce a change in their decision-making once individuals are aware of their bias views. A test method was conducted over a 12-month period that focused on implicit bias through a lived experience within an emergency department due to the high levels of stress associated with a trauma center. The test was based on two different test groups comprised of 10 practicing physicians and 11 nurse attendees and were introduced to a curriculum that included discussion groups, professional lectures, role play, debriefing and self-reflection within the workplace environment. (Sukhera, Milne, Teunissen, Lingard, & Watling, 2018) The results were gathered from self-reflection through exit interviews over an additional 8-10-month period that was explicitly designed to focus on any noticeable changes in each subject as well as any observed changes in their coworkers. The Interviews were conducted then analyzed for any direct correlations between groups. The results were conclusive. “Participants’ appeared to reflect on this dissonance and to share their frustration with their peers. We found that this process of reflection [motivated] participants to reinvent their role within their workplace environment.” (Sukhera et al., 2018, p. 592)Eerland & Rassin, (2012) present their hypothesis that confirmation bias and the feature positive effect (FPE) have a direct correlation with the judicial system.Their test comprised of one hundred and eighty-eight undergraduate law students who was 68% female, and ranged from 20 to 58 years of age, with a mean of 24 years old. The participants were divided into five categories where they were given a case file for a drug-related sexual assault. All participants received case files that contained a toxicology report that showed the victim’s blood had no traces of drugs. However, some of the files also contained testimony from an expert witness that presented information that the forensic report does not mean the person was not drugged. In the control condition, neither the forensic report nor expert testimony was presented. Once each participant read the case files, they were asked to decide if the suspect was guilty using a scale of 10-100% as well as if they would convict. The results of the test found a direct correlation between confirmation bias, FPE and decision making: “effect of confirmation bias (F(l,148) = 9.68, p