Cognitive Biases in Clinical Decision-Making: Implications for Psychological Practice

Alberto Paramio Leiva

doi:10.29057/jbapr.v7i14.14953

Authors

Alberto Paramio Leiva Universidad de Cádiz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2904-1239

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29057/jbapr.v7i14.14953

Keywords:

cognitive process, professional judgment, clinical psychology, decision support tools, review

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Clinical psychologists are routinely required to make complex decisions under uncertainty, often with incomplete information and within emotionally and institutionally charged contexts. A substantial body of evidence from cognitive psychology demonstrates that these decisions are vulnerable to systematic distortions known as cognitive biases. Methods: Theoretical and empirical literature was reviewed to identify key distortions, including confirmation bias, availability heuristic, anchoring, overconfidence and the illusion of validity. Special attention is given to the cumulative dynamics of bias cascade and snowball effects, as well as the influence of contextual variables such as workload, cultural mismatch and documentation practices. Results: Different reasoning frameworks—rational-analytic, intuitive-humanistic and hypothetico-deductive—exhibit varying vulnerability to bias. Ethical and epistemological risks include compromised patient autonomy, unjust credibility judgments and institutional blind spots. Conclusions: Evidence-based mitigation strategies are highlighted, such as structured decision protocols, metacognitive awareness training, collaborative frameworks and outcome-driven feedback.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Publication Facts

This article

Author statements

Data availability

N/A

16%

External funding

No

32%

Competing interests

N/A

11%

This journal

Other journals

Articles accepted

88%

33%

Days to publication

257

145

Indexed in

GS

Editor & editorial board: profiles
Academic society: N/A
Publisher: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo

References

American Psychological Association. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology: APA presidential task force on evidence-based practice. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Avorn, J. (2018). The psychology of clinical decision-making—Implications for medication use. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378(7), 689–691. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1714984

Banning, M. (2008). Clinical reasoning and its application to nursing: Concepts and research studies. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.06.004

Dror, I. E. (2025). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs150200490

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10299-000

Garb, H. N. (2005). Clinical judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143810

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kanat, A. (2023). Intuition in clinical decision-making: A phenomenological and epistemological review. Advances in Integrative Medicine, 11(2), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010117725428

Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2015). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516

Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Schwartz, B., Schilling, V., Deisenhofer, A. K., & Zimmerman, D. (2006). Predicting successful psychotherapy outcomes: Development of the Expected Treatment Response model. Psychotherapy Research, 16(4), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300600589474

Miller, G. A., Hempel, R. J., & Nezu, A. M. (2015). The relation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy in mental health assessments: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 41, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.001

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2019). Psychotherapy relationships that work III. Psychotherapy, 56(4), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000270

Park, S., Jeon, S., & Lee, Y. (2016). Shared decision-making in mental health care: Review and conceptual model. Psychiatric Services, 67(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400533

Pfeiffer, S. I., Glass, C. R., & Blevins, G. A. (2000). Decision-making biases in the clinical judgment process: The influence of hypothesis generation and accountability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(7), 943–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(200007)56:7

Puente-López, E. ortega-Maldonado, A., & Galende, N. (2024). Epistemic injustice in clinical psychology: Challenges and recommendations for inclusive diagnostic practices. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2854

Schottenbauer, M. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (2007). Decision-making processes in integrative psychotherapy: A preliminary model and agenda for research. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 17(3), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/1053-0479.17.3.252

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124