Page 74 - OHS, September 2024

INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
Cognitive Bias in OHS Investigation:
The Biasing Power of Source Identity
The influence of an information source’s identity can significantly bias occupational health and safety investigators’ judgments.
BY DR. CARLA MACLEAN AND SURVEER BOPARAI
Social media influencers, marketers, and TV “experts” understand that who a person is, not just what they say, is influential. The persuasiveness of an information source has important implications for all decisions, including those made in occupational health and safety (OHS) investigations. This article explores the persuasive power of the identity of an information source and how it can shape an OHS investigator’s understanding of events.
Information Source and Bias
Identity is ubiquitous and people rarely consider the impact it has on how information is processed. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training is on the rise globally, and this raises awareness of how identity shapes interactions. Nevertheless, an individual’s characteristics remain a robust source of influence in decision- making, mainly because the bias that results from them usually occurs outside the decision-maker’s awareness.1 Bias is not an eth- ical issue — honest, hardworking and well-intentioned decision- makers can make biased decisions.
Psychologists who study dual process theories of cognition2 of- fer an explanation of how and why the identity of an information source nudges our choices in one direction or another. As author Daniel Kahneman3 explains, people tend to think at two speeds, fast and slow. Thinking slow is deliberative, time-consuming and effortful. For instance, when people try to speak a foreign language. Thinking fast, on the other hand, relies on experience, association and expertise to simplify the decision-making task, make good assumptions and navigate with minimal cognitive effort. People experience fast thinking when they speak their native language.
The identity of a person is a piece of information that provides the decision-maker with a “fast” cognitive shortcut about the qual- ity of the information being offered to them. For instance, an indi- vidual is more likely to accept car advice from a trusted mechanic than from a car salesman. If one’s understanding of information is altered because of who provided it, it is a biased judgment. Bias is the systematic deviation4 from what an evidenced-based, objec- tive judgment of the information would determine. Bias is bidirec- tional, meaning it can lead to rendering a judgment moreso or less than what the evidence shows.
Characteristics of the person sharing the information, such as affiliation with the decision-maker as an in-group,5 or cues that suggest credibility, such as experience6 can be biasing. Uncertainty, insufficient knowledge and limited cognitive resources because of such things as fatigue or time pressure can amplify the likelihood of bias as they lead decision-makers to depend more on easily ac- cessible, yet potentially irrelevant, peripheral elements of a message.
OHS Investigation
The research has not carefully considered how an information source’s identity shapes OHS investigators’ judgments. Howev- er, individual influence7 has been explored as a way to bring about positive change in occupational safety, and applied research from the construction sector has shown how the identity of a source shapes employees’ judgments of risk. Stacey M. Conchie and Calvin Burns8 found that employees rated safety personnel in their work environment the most trustworthy (i.e., UK HSE and safety manag- ers) compared to other personnel (i.e., project managers and work colleagues). Safety personnel were also found to have the greatest influence on employees’ behavioral intentions regarding risk.
Demonstrating the Power of the Person
The previous research demonstrates how source identity influenc- es intentions in real work settings. It also shows that the identity of an information source has the potential to specifically bias the judgments of OHS investigators. To directly test this hypothesis, 40 professional investigators voluntarily participated in an online in- vestigative activity. Their participation was completely anonymous and they could withdraw from the activity at any time without negative consequences.
Respondents were highly experienced. Prior to working in their current, high-profile, investigative role, all respondents had held investigative positions in other agencies. The team of investigators involved in this activity had a variety of backgrounds and training. The Public Safety Group were individuals with a law enforcement background (e.g., police, border services), the Industry Group had an industry background (e.g., occupational health and safety per- sonnel from forestry, mining, fishing, etc. or prevention services), the Other Group was comprised of subject matter experts from disciplines such as hygiene, human factors and engineering.
Respondents self-identified their group membership at the start of the activity and the number of years they had worked with the
72 Occupational Health & Safety | SEPTEMBER 2024
www.ohsonline.com
Parilov/stock.adobe.com