Decision Making in Title IX Investigations: A Hypothesis Testing Approach to Overcome Cognitive Bias

  • William T. O’Donohue


Title IX investigations have been controversial and much of the scrutiny has been on legal dimensions such as thresholds of proof or cross-examining witnesses. However, another important issue is the accurate and unbiased processing of the information. This chapter discusses a well-known heuristic error known as confirmation bias and presents a methodology for potentially controlling for this bias in Title IX investigations. A hypothesis testing model in which competing hypotheses are developed and disconfirming or confirming information is delineated antecedently is presented. This chapter also discussed the difficulty of making final judgments which is also complicated by the lack of development of clear markers of sexual misconduct or of false allegations.


Title IX Investigation Confirmation bias False allegations 


  1. Bradley, A. R., & Wood, J. M. (1996). How do children tell? The disclosure process in child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 881–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2014). Post-traumatic growth. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cummings, C. & O’Donohue, W. (2019). A forensic interview protocol for adult sexual assault: Content validity and consumer acceptability. Article submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  4. Engle, J., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Pathways to false allegations of sexual assault. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(2), 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harper, S., Maskaly, J., Kirkner, A., & Lorenz, K. (2017). Enhancing Title IX due process standards in campus sexual assault adjudication: Considering the roles of distributive, procedural, and restorative justice. Journal of School Violence, 16, 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  8. Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McNally, R. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. O’Donohue, W. T., Snipes, C., & Soto, C. (2015). A case study of the overselling of psychotherapy: ACT interventions for diabetes management. Journal of Contemporary Psychology, 46(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poletiek, F. H. (2015). Hypothesis testing behavior. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Popper, K. R. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Richards, T. N. (2019). No evidence of “Weaponized Title IX” here: An empirical assessment of sexual misconduct reporting, case processing, and outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sagan, C. (2011). The demon haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Paw Print.Google Scholar
  16. Triplett, M. R. (2012). Sexual assault on college campuses: Seeking the appropriate balance between due process and victim protection. Duke Law Journal, 62(2), 487–527.Google Scholar
  17. Urbach, R. (1987). Francis Bacon’s philosophy of science. London: Open Court.Google Scholar
  18. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • William T. O’Donohue
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations