Skip to main content

If It Walks Like a Duck: a Case of Confirmatory Bias

Abstract

Confirmatory bias is an unavoidable source of error in human judgment, which is rooted in the adaptive design of the brain for recognizing meaningful patterns. In forensic psychology, the complete elimination of confirmatory bias is worth aspiring to, but even its substantial reduction is fraught with challenges. In this brief article, I present a vignette from an actual jury trial to illustrate how a seemingly small instance of confirmatory bias led to a major blunder in expert testimony. Also, I consider how it might have been prevented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Arkes, H. R. (1989). Principles in judgment/decision making research pertinent to legal proceedings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 429–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borum, R., Otto, R., & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 21, 35–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J., & Potter, M. (1964). Inference in visual recognition. Science, 144, 424–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, M. (2007). Exploring Indiana highways. Wabasha, MN: Travel Organization Network Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinlein, R. A. (1961). Stranger in a strange land. New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martindale, D. A. (2005). Confirmatory bias and confirmatory distortion. Journal of Child Custody, 2(1-2), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1997). Credentialed persons, credentialed knowledge. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 91–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014a). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 20(2), 200–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014b). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations: Correction to Neal & Grisso (2014). Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 20(3), 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wills, C. (2008). The CHESS method of forensic opinion formulation: striving to checkmate bias. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36, 535–540.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E. Erard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erard, R.E. If It Walks Like a Duck: a Case of Confirmatory Bias. Psychol. Inj. and Law 9, 275–277 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-016-9262-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-016-9262-6

Keywords

  • Confirmatory bias
  • Expert testimony
  • Forensic psychology