Countering Cognitive Bias: Tips for Recognizing the Impact of Potential Bias on Research

Published:August 21, 2015DOI:
      Despite their best efforts to remain objective, researchers, like all of us, can harbor biases that might cloud their judgment—and there is growing evidence that such biases could have a profound effect on the scientific literature. According to some estimates, findings published in scientific journals can contain inaccuracies more often than expected.
      • Ioannidis J.P.
      Why most published research findings are false.
      And an important reason for this higher rate, experts say, may be the pernicious effect of bias.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Why most published research findings are false.
        PLoS Med. 2005; 2 (Accessed October 3, 2014): e124
      1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, eds. Chapter 8: Accessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Updated March 2011. Accessed June 5, 2015.

        • Wilke A.
        • Mata R.
        Cognitive bias.
        in: The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Vol. 1. Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA2012: 531-535
        • Califf R.M.
        • McCall J.
        • Harrington R.A.
        Assessing research results in the medical literature: Trust but verify.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173: 1053-1055
        • Markman K.D.
        • Hirt E.R.
        Social prediction and the “allegiance bias.”.
        Soc Cogn. 2002; 20: 58-86
        • Leykin Y.
        • DeRubeis R.J.
        Allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: Separating association from bias.
        Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2009; 16: 54-65
        • Nickerson R.
        Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.
        Rev Gen Psychol. 1998; 2: 175-220
      2. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. 2010. American Institute of Cancer Research website. Accessed October 3, 2014.

        • Schoenfeld J.D.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 97: 127-134
        • Bohan Brown M.M.
        • Brown A.W.
        • Allison D.B.
        Nutritional epidemiology in practice: Learning from data or promulgating beliefs?.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2013; 97: 5-6
        • Casazza K.
        • Fontaine K.R.
        • Astrup A.
        • et al.
        Myths, presumptions, and facts about obesity.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 446-454
      3. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Evidence Analysis Manual: Steps in the Academy Evidence Analysis Process. Published January 2012. Accessed March 7, 2015.

        • Lipman T.O.
        Critical reading and critical thinking—Study design and methodology: A personal approach on how to read the clinical literature.
        Nutr Clin Pract. 2013; 28: 158-164
      4. Guyatt G. Rennie D. Meade M.O. Cook D.J. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature. Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New York2008