Advertisement

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

  • Tess M. S. Neal
  • Morgan Hight
  • Brian C. Howatt
  • Cassandra Hamza
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Psychology and Law book series (APL, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter integrates the basic science of bias in human judgment from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue, such as in insanity cases, child custody hearings, and psychological injuries in civil suits. The legal system itself and many people involved, such as jurors, assume mental health experts are “objective” and untainted by bias. However, basic psychological science from several branches of the discipline suggests that this assumption about experts’ immunity against bias is wrong. Indeed, several empirical studies now show clear evidence of (unintentional) bias in forensic mental health experts’ judgments and decisions. In this chapter, we explain the science of how and why human judgments are susceptible to various kinds of bias. We describe dual-process theories from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology that can help explain these biases. We review the empirical evidence to date specifically about cognitive and social psychological biases in forensic mental health judgments, weaving in related literature about biases in other types of expert judgment, with hypotheses about how forensic experts are likely affected by these biases. We close with a discussion of directions for future research and practice.

Keywords

Judgment Decision Bias Forensic Dual-process Cognitive Social Heuristic Implicit 

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., Wortmann, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (2015). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. New York: Worth Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review, 80, 96–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beltrani, A., Reed, A., Zapf, P. A., Dror, I. E., & Otto, R. K. (2017, March). Is hindsight really 20/20? The impact of outcomes on the decision making process. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  7. Braman, E., & Nelson, T. E. (2007). Mechanism of motivated reasoning? Analogical perception in discrimination disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 940–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00290.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boy Scouts of the United States of American v. Dale, 530 US 640 (2000).Google Scholar
  9. Caplan, R. A., Posner, K. L., & Cheney, F. W. (1991). Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 265, 1957–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system (Vol. 1). New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  13. Commons, M. L., Miller, P. M., & Gutheil, T. G. (2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32(1), 70–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, M. B., & Smallman, H. S. (2008). Human factors of the confirmation bias in intelligence analysis: Decision support from graphical evidence landscapes. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devine, P. G., Hamilton, D. L. E., & Ostrom, T. M. (Eds.). (1994). Social cognition: Impact on social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Drew, T., Võ, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). The invisible gorilla strikes again sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24, 1848–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Goldman, R., Hout, S., Hesselton, D., & Alexander, W. (1998). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool—Revised (MnSOST-R). St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections. Available online at. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu Google Scholar
  20. Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond “heuristics and biases”. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Girvan, E. J. (2016). Wise restraints?: Learning legal rules, not standards, reduces the effects of stereotypes in legal decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Girvan, E. J., Deason, G., & Borgida, E. (2015). The generalizability of gender bias: Testing the effects of contextual, explicit, and implicit sexism on labor arbitration decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000139 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., et al. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–778.Google Scholar
  32. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static-99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User Report 99–02). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  33. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  34. Haselton, M., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D., & Galperin, A. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27, 733–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hastdorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Helm, R. K., Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2016). Are arbitrators human? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13, 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (2004). How to improve the diagnostic inferences of medical experts. In E. Kurz-Milcke & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Experts in science and society (pp. 249–268). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D., Evans, D., Devins, N., Lucci, E., & Cheng, K. (2016). 'Ideology' or 'situation sense'? An experimental investigation of motivated reasoning and professional judgment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2, 394.Google Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice—Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  41. Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Zapf, P. A. (2017, March). Cognitive bias: A survey of forensic examiners. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  44. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. LaBine, S. J., & LaBine, G. (1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 501–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. LeBourgeois, H. W., III, Pinals, D. A., Williams, V., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Hindsight bias among psychiatrists. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 67–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McAuliff, B. D., & Arter, J. L. (2016). Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000198 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore, D. A., Loewenstein, G., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2003). Auditor independence, conflict of interest, and the unconscious intrusion of bias. Harvard Business School Working Paper No 03-116. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.2829&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  50. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24, 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M., Johnson, J., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluation? Law and Human Behavior, 32, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Meeks, M., Woods, C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nakhaeizadeh, S., Dror, I. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: Visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Science and Justice, 54, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Neal, T. M. S. (2016). Are forensic experts already biased before adversarial legal parties hire them? PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0154434. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154434 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 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, 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neal, T. M. S. & Cramer, R. J. (in press). Moral disengagement in legal judgments. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Google Scholar
  57. Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neal, T. M. S., MacLean, N., Morgan, R. D., & Murrie, D. C. (2017, March). Robust evidence of confirmation bias in forensic psychologists’ diagnostic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  59. Neal, T. M. S. & Saks, M.J. (in preparation). Context effects in forensic mental health science: A review and application of the science of science to the practice of forensic mental health evaluations. Google Scholar
  60. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  64. Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Pronin, E., Lin, D. L., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus other. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2009). Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges? Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195–1246.Google Scholar
  67. Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575–2609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2004). The effect of outcome information on doctors’ evaluations of their own diagnostic decisions. Medical Education, 38, 1025–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scopelliti, I., Morewedge, C. K., McCormick, E., Min, L. H., Lebrecht, S., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Bias blind spot: Structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Science, 61, 2468–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Segal, J. A., & Spaetch, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretation of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2017, March). Cognitive bias: A survey of forensic evaluators. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tess M. S. Neal
    • 1
  • Morgan Hight
    • 1
  • Brian C. Howatt
    • 1
  • Cassandra Hamza
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, New College of Interdisciplinary Arts & SciencesArizona State UniversityGlendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations