Skip to main content
Log in

Dual processing and diagnostic errors

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I review evidence from two theories in psychology relevant to diagnosis and diagnostic errors. “Dual Process” theories of thinking, frequently mentioned with respect to diagnostic error, propose that categorization decisions can be made with either a fast, unconscious, contextual process called System 1 or a slow, analytical, conscious, and conceptual process, called System 2. Exemplar theories of categorization propose that many category decisions in everyday life are made by unconscious matching to a particular example in memory, and these remain available and retrievable individually. I then review studies of clinical reasoning based on these theories, and show that the two processes are equally effective; System 1, despite its reliance in idiosyncratic, individual experience, is no more prone to cognitive bias or diagnostic error than System 2. Further, I review evidence that instructions directed at encouraging the clinician to explicitly use both strategies can lead to consistent reduction in error rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ark, T., Brooks, L. R., & Eva, K. W. (2007). The benefits of flexibility: The pedagogical value of instructions to adopt multifaceted diagnostic reasoning strategies. Medical Education, 41, 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., Neufeld, V. R., Feightner, J. W., & Norman, G. R. (1982). The clinical reasoning process of randomly selected physicians in general medical practice. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 5, 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008). Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. American Journal of Medicine, 121, S2–S33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, L. R. (1978). Decentralized control of categorization: The role of prior processing episodes. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development (pp. 141–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, B. D. (2004). The effects of speed on skilled chess performance. Psychological Science, 15, 442–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coderre, S., Mandin, H., Harasym, P. H., & Fick, G. H. (2003). Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Medical Education, 37, 695–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colom, R., Rebollo, I., Palacios, A., Juan-Espinosa, M., & Kyllonen, P. C. (2004). Working memory is (almost) perfectly predicted by g. Intelligence, 32, 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2000). The cognitive imperative: Thinking about how we think. Academic Emergency Medicine, 7, 1223–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2002). Achieving quality in clinical decision making: Cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9, 1184–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2003a). Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decision-making. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2003b). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine, 78, 775–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2006). Critical thinking and decision-making: Avoiding the perils of thin-slicing. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 48, 720–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskerry, P. (2009). Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: Applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Advances in Health Sciences Education. doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2.

  • Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & von Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation—without—attention effect. Science, 311, 1005–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstein, A. S. (1999). Heuristics and biases: Selected errors in clinical reasoning. Academic Medicine, 74, 791–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstein, A.S. (2009). Thinking about diagnostic thinking: A thirty year perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education. doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9184-0.

  • Elstein, A. S., & Schwarz, A. (2002). Clinical problem-solving and diagnostic decision-making: A selective review of the cognitive literature. British Medical Journal, 324, 729–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1977). Medical problem solving: An analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., Hatala, R. M., LeBlanc, V. R., & Brooks, L. R. (2007). Teaching from the clinical reasoning literature: Combined reasoning strategies helps novice diagnosticians overcome misleading information. Medical Education, 41, 1152–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2005). Heuristics and biases—A biased perspective on clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 39, 870–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80, S46–S54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Modes of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T. (1993). How do we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday judgement. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little Brown: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Neuroimage, 12, 504–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005). Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 1493–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graber, M. L., Gordon, R., & Franklin, N. (2002). Reducing diagnostic error in medicine: What’s the goal? Academic Medicine, 77, 981–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groopman, J. (2007). How doctors think. Harcourt: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, M., O’Rourke, P., & Alexander, H. (2003). The clinical reasoning characteristics of diagnostic experts. Medical Teacher, 25, 308–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, R. M. (2004). Theory about heuristic strategies based on verbal proptocol analysis: The emperor needs a shave. Medical Decision Making, 24(68), 681–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatala, R., Norman, G. R., & Brooks, L. R. (1999). Influence of a single example upon subsequent electrocardiogram interpretation. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 11, 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahnemann, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. (2005). Pitfalls in teaching judgment heuristics. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 43–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulatunga-Moruzi, C., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2001). Coordination of analytic and similarity-based processing strategies and expertise in dermatological diagnosis. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 13, 110–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulatunga-Moruzi, C., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2004). The diagnostic disadvantage of having all the facts: Using comprehensive feature lists to bias diagnosis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 563–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamede, S., Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. (2007). Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine. Journal of Evaluation and Clinical Practice, 13, 138–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). A context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 32, 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld, V. R., Norman, G. R., Barrows, H. S., & Feightner, J. W. (1981). Clinical problem solving by medical students: Results of a crsosssectional and longitudinal analysis. Medical Education, 15, 315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. R., Brooks, L. R., Allen, S. W., & Rosenthal, D. (1990). Sources of observer variation in dermatologic diagnosis. Academic Medicine, 65, S19–S21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G., Young, M., & Brooks, L. (2007). Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: The role of experience. Medical Education, 41, 1140–1145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretz, J. E. (2008). Intuition versus analysis: Strategy and experience in complex everyday problem-solving. Memory & Cognition, 36, 554–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. (2005). The cognitive psychology of missed diagnoses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142, 115–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., Shafir, E., & Aujla, P. S. (2001). The beguiling pursuit of more information. Journal of Medical Decision Making, 21, 376–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiff, G. D., Kim, S., Abrams, R., Cosby, K., Lambert, B., Elstein, A. S., et al. (2005). Diagnosing diagnosis errors: Lessons from a multi-institutional collaborative project. Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation. Washington DC: DHHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behaviorial and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist, 40, 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wears, R. L., & Nemath, C. P. (2007). Replacing hindsight with insight: Toward better understanding of diagnostic failures. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49, 206–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. E., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2007). Found in translation: The impact of familiar symptoms descriptions on diagnosis in novices. Medical Education, 41, 1146–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geoff Norman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Norman, G. Dual processing and diagnostic errors. Adv in Health Sci Educ 14 (Suppl 1), 37–49 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9179-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9179-x

Keywords

Navigation