减少学生认知偏差的教育方法的系统回顾与元分析

IF 15.9 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Ghassani Swaryandini, Jessica Graham, Shantell Griffith, Vasco Grilo, Federica Ruzzante, Xingruo Zhang, Siu Kit Yeung, Marta Mangiarulo, Geetanjali Basarkod, Clarence Ng, Philip Parker, Jason Tangen, Alexander Saeri, Emily Grundy, Peter Slattery, Michael Noetel
{"title":"减少学生认知偏差的教育方法的系统回顾与元分析","authors":"Ghassani Swaryandini, Jessica Graham, Shantell Griffith, Vasco Grilo, Federica Ruzzante, Xingruo Zhang, Siu Kit Yeung, Marta Mangiarulo, Geetanjali Basarkod, Clarence Ng, Philip Parker, Jason Tangen, Alexander Saeri, Emily Grundy, Peter Slattery, Michael Noetel","doi":"10.1038/s41562-025-02253-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Resistance to cognitive biases is a crucial element of rationality that influences judgement and decision-making. Here we synthesized the effects of debiasing training in educational settings. Our systematic review found 54 randomized controlled trials consisting of 383 effect sizes and 10,941 participants. Our meta-analysis of educational interventions showed a small, yet significant, improvement in reducing the likelihood of committing biases compared with control conditions (<i>g</i> = 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.39), 160 effects from 41 studies, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Most studies focused on reducing the likelihood of committing biases (for example, confirmation bias) using cognitive strategies. Some biases seemed difficult to overcome (for example, representativeness heuristic), and questions remain about the depth and transferability of learning beyond classroom settings. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias and there was some risk of publication bias. While evidence suggests that educational interventions can reduce bias on targeted tasks, more research is needed to determine whether these improvements translate to meaningful changes in real-world decision-making and to identify which paedagogical approaches are most effective for reducing the influence of cognitive biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students\",\"authors\":\"Ghassani Swaryandini, Jessica Graham, Shantell Griffith, Vasco Grilo, Federica Ruzzante, Xingruo Zhang, Siu Kit Yeung, Marta Mangiarulo, Geetanjali Basarkod, Clarence Ng, Philip Parker, Jason Tangen, Alexander Saeri, Emily Grundy, Peter Slattery, Michael Noetel\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41562-025-02253-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Resistance to cognitive biases is a crucial element of rationality that influences judgement and decision-making. Here we synthesized the effects of debiasing training in educational settings. Our systematic review found 54 randomized controlled trials consisting of 383 effect sizes and 10,941 participants. Our meta-analysis of educational interventions showed a small, yet significant, improvement in reducing the likelihood of committing biases compared with control conditions (<i>g</i> = 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.39), 160 effects from 41 studies, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Most studies focused on reducing the likelihood of committing biases (for example, confirmation bias) using cognitive strategies. Some biases seemed difficult to overcome (for example, representativeness heuristic), and questions remain about the depth and transferability of learning beyond classroom settings. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias and there was some risk of publication bias. While evidence suggests that educational interventions can reduce bias on targeted tasks, more research is needed to determine whether these improvements translate to meaningful changes in real-world decision-making and to identify which paedagogical approaches are most effective for reducing the influence of cognitive biases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02253-y\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02253-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抵制认知偏见是影响判断和决策的理性的关键因素。在这里,我们综合了教育环境中去偏见训练的效果。我们的系统综述发现54个随机对照试验,包括383个效应量和10941名参与者。我们对教育干预的荟萃分析显示,与对照条件相比,教育干预在降低偏倚可能性方面有微小但显著的改善(g = 0.26, 95%可信区间0.14至0.39),41项研究的160个效应,P < 0.001)。大多数研究都集中在使用认知策略来减少犯下偏见(例如,确认偏见)的可能性。有些偏见似乎很难克服(例如,代表性启发式),关于课堂环境之外学习的深度和可转移性的问题仍然存在。所有研究均存在不明确或较高的偏倚风险,并存在一定的发表偏倚风险。虽然有证据表明,教育干预可以减少对目标任务的偏见,但需要更多的研究来确定这些改进是否转化为现实世界决策中有意义的变化,并确定哪种教学方法对减少认知偏见的影响最有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students

Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational approaches to reduce cognitive biases among students

Resistance to cognitive biases is a crucial element of rationality that influences judgement and decision-making. Here we synthesized the effects of debiasing training in educational settings. Our systematic review found 54 randomized controlled trials consisting of 383 effect sizes and 10,941 participants. Our meta-analysis of educational interventions showed a small, yet significant, improvement in reducing the likelihood of committing biases compared with control conditions (g = 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.39), 160 effects from 41 studies, P < 0.001). Most studies focused on reducing the likelihood of committing biases (for example, confirmation bias) using cognitive strategies. Some biases seemed difficult to overcome (for example, representativeness heuristic), and questions remain about the depth and transferability of learning beyond classroom settings. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias and there was some risk of publication bias. While evidence suggests that educational interventions can reduce bias on targeted tasks, more research is needed to determine whether these improvements translate to meaningful changes in real-world decision-making and to identify which paedagogical approaches are most effective for reducing the influence of cognitive biases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信