Diagnostic error, overconfidence and self-knowledge

35Citations
Citations of this article
79Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

According to the overconfidence hypothesis (OH), physician overconfidence is a major factor contributing to diagnostic error in medicine. This article argues that OH can be read as offering a personal, a sub-personal or a systemic explanation of diagnostic error. It is argued that personal level overconfidence is an “epistemic vice”. The hypothesis that diagnostic errors due to overconfidence can be remedied by increasing physician self-knowledge is shown to be questionable. Some epistemic vices or cognitive biases, including overconfidence, are “stealthy” in the sense that they obstruct their own detection. Even if the barriers to self-knowledge can be overcome, some problematic traits are so deeply entrenched that even well-informed and motivated individuals might be unable to correct them. One such trait is overconfidence. Alternative approaches to “debiasing” are considered and it is argued that overconfidence is blameworthy only if it is understood as a personal level epistemic vice rather than a sub-personal cognitive bias. This paper is published as part of a collection on self-knowledge in and outside of illness.

References Powered by Scopus

Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing

5966Citations
1701Readers
Get full text
4183Citations
4850Readers
Get full text

The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination

1179Citations
282Readers
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Cognitive bias clinical medicine

221Citations
594Readers
133Citations
292Readers
Get full text
62Citations
88Readers
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cassam, Q. (2017). Diagnostic error, overconfidence and self-knowledge. Palgrave Communications, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.25

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2405101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

44%

Researcher 7

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

18%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

18%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 18

55%

Psychology 6

18%

Business, Management and Accounting 5

15%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

12%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0