Exploring Cognitive Biases Limiting Rational Problem Solving and Debiasing Methods Using Science Education

합리적 문제해결을 저해하는 인지편향과 과학교육을 통한 탈인지편향 방법 탐색

  • Received : 2016.10.18
  • Accepted : 2016.12.21
  • Published : 2016.12.31


This study aims to explore cognitive biases relating the core competences of science and instructional strategy in reducing the level of cognitive biases. The literature review method was used to explore cognitive biases and science education experts discussed the relevance of cognitive biases to science education. Twenty nine cognitive biases were categorized into five groups (limiting rational causal inference, limiting diverse information search, limiting self-regulated learning, limiting self-directed decision making, and category-limited thinking). The cognitive biases in limiting rational causal inference group are teleological thinking, availability heuristic, illusory correlation, and clustering illusion. The cognitive biases in limiting diverse information search group are selective perception, experimenter bias, confirmation bias, mere thought effect, attentional bias, belief bias, pragmatic fallacy, functional fixedness, and framing effect. The cognitive biases in limiting self-regulated learning group are overconfidence bias, better-than-average bias, planning fallacy, fundamental attribution error, Dunning-Kruger effect, hindsight bias, and blind-spot bias. The cognitive biases in limiting self-directed decision-making group are acquiescence effect, bandwagon effect, group-think, appeal to authority bias, and information bias. Lastly, the cognitive biases in category-limited thinking group are psychological essentialism, stereotyping, anthropomorphism, and outgroup homogeneity bias. The instructional strategy to reduce the level of cognitive biases is disused based on the psychological characters of cognitive biases reviewed in this study and related science education methods.


science education;cognitive bias;decision-making;philosophy of science;cognitive psychology


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Rosenthal, L. H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(1), 43-57.
  2. Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 804-825.
  3. Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652-661.
  4. Barber, T. X., Forgione, A., Chaves, J. F., Calverley, D. S., McPEAKE, J. D., & Bowen, B. (1969). Five attempts to replicate the experimenter bias effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(1), 1-6.
  5. Bartov, H. (1978). Can student be taught to distinguish between teleological and causal explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(6), 567-572.
  6. Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008). Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. The American Journal of Medicine, 121(5), S2-S23.
  7. Buehler, R., Griffin,, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366-381.
  8. Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(3), 271.
  9. Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Leone, C. (2011). A self-validation perspective on the mere thought effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 449-454.
  11. Cooper, D. (2003). Psychology, risk and safety. Professional Safety, 48(11), 39-46.
  12. Emmons, N. A., & Kelemen, D. A. (2015). Young children's acceptance of within-species variation: Implications for essentialism and teaching evolution. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 148-160.
  13. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Evans, J. S. B., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382-389.
  15. Fischhoff, B., & Beyth, R. (1975). I knew it would happen: Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 1-16.
  16. Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken: mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 318-331.
  17. Garrett, J. W., & Teizer, J. (2009). Human factors analysis classification system relating to human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(8), 754-763.
  18. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(9), 404-409.
  19. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). "On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996)". Psychological Review, 103(3), 592-596.
  20. Goodwin, J. (2011). Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts. Argumentation, 25(3), 285-296.
  21. Gotthelf, A. (1976). Aristotle's conception of final causality. Review of Metaphysics, 30, 226-254.
  22. Ha, M. & Lee, J. K. (2014). Over-efficacy in problem solving and overconfidence of knowledge on photosynthesis: A study of comparison between multiple-choice and supply-type test formats. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(1), 1-9.
  23. Ha, M., Haury, D. L., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 95-121.
  24. Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(4), 392-407.
  25. Haselton, M.G., Nettle, D. & Andrews, P.W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, (pp. 724-746). Hoboken: Wiley.
  26. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113-127.
  27. Hernandez, I., & Preston, J. L. (2013). Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 178-182.
  28. Hirt, E. R., & Markman, K. D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1069-1086.
  29. Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Darwinism, causality and the social sciences. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2), 175-194.
  30. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43-46.
  31. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557-571.
  32. Jungwirth, E. (1975). The problem of teleology in biology as a problem of biology-teacher education. Journal of Biological Education, 9(6), 243-246.
  33. Kahneman D., Slovic P., and Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  35. Kampourakis, K., Palaiokrassa, E., Papadopoulou, M., Pavlidi, V., & Argyropoulou, M. (2012). Children's Intuitive teleology: Shifting the focus of evolution education research. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(2), 279-291.
  36. Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, S. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 66-92). Oxford: University Press.
  37. Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children's reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(1), 3-31.
  38. Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138-143.
  39. Kelemen, D., Callanan, M. A., Casler, K., & Perez-Granados, D. R. (2005). Why things happen: teleological explanation in parent-child conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 251-264.
  40. Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074-1083.
  41. Khalidi, M. A. (2013) Natural Categories and Human Kinds: Classification in the Natural and Social Sciences (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  42. Kim, S. H. (2009). Effect of self-evaluation to identify causes of wrong answers on achievement. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 22(1), 29-56.
  43. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and memory, 6(2), 107118.
  44. Larrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2008). The MPG Illusion. Science, 320(5883), 1593-1594.
  45. Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2014). Designing collective intelligence-based instructional models for teaching socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 523-534.
  46. Lee, H., Choi, Y., & Ko, Y. (2015). Effects of collective intelligence-based SSI instruction on promoting middle school students' key competencies as citizens. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(3), 431-442.
  47. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., De Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 339-354.
  48. Leyens, J. P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R., et al.(2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism The 2002 Tajfel Lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703-717.
  49. Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395-411.
  50. Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390-398.
  51. Lim, H. & Jang, S. (2004). Science high school students' understanding of orbitals and atomic model. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 12(2), 261-274.
  52. Lombrozo, T., Kelemen, D., & Zaitchik, D. (2007). Inferring design evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer's Disease. Psychological Science, 18(11), 999-1006.
  53. Mahalingam, R., & Leu, J. (2005). Culture, essentialism, immigration and representations of gender. Theory & Psychology, 15(6), 839-860.
  54. Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory & Cognition, 17(1), 11-17.
  55. Marsh, D. M., & Hanlon, T. J. (2007). Seeing what we want to see: Confirmation bias in animal behavior research. Ethology, 113(11), 1089-1098.
  56. McKenzie, C. R. (2006). Increased sensitivity to differentially diagnostic answers using familiar materials: Implications for confirmation bias. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 577-588.
  57. Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539-1550.
  58. Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 379-383.
  59. Ministry of Education (2015). General introduction of elementary and secondary curriculum. Seoul, Ministry of Education.
  60. Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129-140.
  61. Mullen, B., & Hu, L. T. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 233-252.
  62. Nadeau, R., Cloutier, E., & Guay, J. H. (1993). New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review, 14(2), 203-213.
  63. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  64. Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256.
  65. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106.
  66. O'Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(4), 315-334
  67. Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744-777.
  68. Pehrson, S., Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2009). When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist in-group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 61-76.
  69. Pines, J. M. (2006). Profiles in patient safety: confirmation bias in emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(1), 90-94.
  70. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
  71. Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369-381.
  72. Rassin, E., Eerland, A., & Kuijpers, I. (2010). Let's find the evidence: An analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), 231-246.
  73. Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497-510.
  74. Schlosser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K. L., & Kruger, J. (2013). How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the "signal extraction" counterexplanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 85-100.
  75. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1-2), 111-139.
  76. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 61(2), 195.
  77. Schwind, C., Buder, J., Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Preference-inconsistent recommendations: An effective approach for reducing confirmation bias and stimulating divergent thinking?. Computers & Education, 58(2), 787-796.
  78. Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1049-1062.
  79. Simmons, R. E., & Altwegg, R. (2010). Necks-for-sex or competing browsers? A critique of ideas on the evolution of giraffe. Journal of Zoology, 282(1), 6-12.
  80. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
  81. Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 189-195.
  82. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 11. (pp. 289-338)New York: Academic Press.
  83. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
  84. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
  85. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis (pp. 107-129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  86. Van Bockstaele, B., Verschuere, B., Tibboel, H., De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., & Koster, E. H. (2014). A review of current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias on fear and anxiety. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 682-721.
  87. Vaughn, L. A. (1999). Effects of uncertainty on use of the availability heuristic for self-efficacy judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 407-410.<407::AID-EJSP943>3.0.CO;2-3
  88. Vonk, R. (1999). Effects of outcome dependency on correspondence bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(3), 382-389.
  89. Walton, D. (1999). Francis Bacon: Human Bias and the Four Idols. Argumentation, 13(4), 385-389.
  90. Walton, D. N. (1994). Begging the question as a pragmatic fallacy. Synthese, 100(1), 95-131.
  91. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(1), 1-15.<1::AID-BDM361>3.0.CO;2-N
  92. Ware, E. A., & Gelman, S. A. (2014). You get what you need: An examination of purpose-based inheritance reasoning in undergraduates, preschoolers, and biological experts. Cognitive Science, 38(2), 197-243.
  93. Wheeler, P. R., & Arunachalam, V. (2008). The effects of decision aid design on the information search strategies and confirmation bias of tax professionals. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(1), 131-145.
  94. Winman, A., Hansson, P., & Juslin, P. (2004). Subjective probability intervals: how to reduce overconfidence by interval evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1167-1175.