Forensic Clinicians' Understanding of Bias

Nina MacLean, Tess M.S. Neal, Robert D. Morgan, Daniel C. Murrie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Bias, or systematic influences that create errors in judgment, can affect psychological evaluations in ways that lead to erroneous diagnoses and opinions. Although these errors can have especially serious consequences in the criminal justice system, little research has addressed forensic psychologists' awareness of well-known cognitive biases and debiasing strategies. We conducted a national survey with a sample of 120 randomly selected licensed psychologists with forensic interests to examine (a) their familiarity with and understanding of cognitive biases, (b) their self-reported strategies to mitigate bias, and (c) the relation of a and b to psychologists' cognitive reflection abilities. Most psychologists reported familiarity with well-known biases and distinguished these from sham biases and reported using research-identified strategies but not fictional or sham strategies. However, some psychologists reported little familiarity with actual biases, endorsed sham biases as real, failed to recognize effective bias mitigation strategies, and endorsed ineffective bias mitigation strategies. Furthermore, nearly everyone endorsed introspection (a strategy known to be ineffective) as an effective bias mitigation strategy. Cognitive reflection abilities were systematically related to error, such that stronger cognitive reflection was associated with less endorsement of sham biases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Psychology
trend
Aptitude
psychologist
Criminal Law
Research
introspection
ability
Recognition (Psychology)
justice
evaluation

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Cognitive reflection
  • Forensic evaluation
  • Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Forensic Clinicians' Understanding of Bias. / MacLean, Nina; Neal, Tess M.S.; Morgan, Robert D.; Murrie, Daniel C.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

MacLean, Nina ; Neal, Tess M.S. ; Morgan, Robert D. ; Murrie, Daniel C. / Forensic Clinicians' Understanding of Bias. In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2019.
@article{0acda4e779f9493ba5dab836c815984b,
title = "Forensic Clinicians' Understanding of Bias",
abstract = "Bias, or systematic influences that create errors in judgment, can affect psychological evaluations in ways that lead to erroneous diagnoses and opinions. Although these errors can have especially serious consequences in the criminal justice system, little research has addressed forensic psychologists' awareness of well-known cognitive biases and debiasing strategies. We conducted a national survey with a sample of 120 randomly selected licensed psychologists with forensic interests to examine (a) their familiarity with and understanding of cognitive biases, (b) their self-reported strategies to mitigate bias, and (c) the relation of a and b to psychologists' cognitive reflection abilities. Most psychologists reported familiarity with well-known biases and distinguished these from sham biases and reported using research-identified strategies but not fictional or sham strategies. However, some psychologists reported little familiarity with actual biases, endorsed sham biases as real, failed to recognize effective bias mitigation strategies, and endorsed ineffective bias mitigation strategies. Furthermore, nearly everyone endorsed introspection (a strategy known to be ineffective) as an effective bias mitigation strategy. Cognitive reflection abilities were systematically related to error, such that stronger cognitive reflection was associated with less endorsement of sham biases.",
keywords = "Bias, Cognitive reflection, Forensic evaluation, Survey",
author = "Nina MacLean and Neal, {Tess M.S.} and Morgan, {Robert D.} and Murrie, {Daniel C.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/law0000212",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forensic Clinicians' Understanding of Bias

AU - MacLean, Nina

AU - Neal, Tess M.S.

AU - Morgan, Robert D.

AU - Murrie, Daniel C.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Bias, or systematic influences that create errors in judgment, can affect psychological evaluations in ways that lead to erroneous diagnoses and opinions. Although these errors can have especially serious consequences in the criminal justice system, little research has addressed forensic psychologists' awareness of well-known cognitive biases and debiasing strategies. We conducted a national survey with a sample of 120 randomly selected licensed psychologists with forensic interests to examine (a) their familiarity with and understanding of cognitive biases, (b) their self-reported strategies to mitigate bias, and (c) the relation of a and b to psychologists' cognitive reflection abilities. Most psychologists reported familiarity with well-known biases and distinguished these from sham biases and reported using research-identified strategies but not fictional or sham strategies. However, some psychologists reported little familiarity with actual biases, endorsed sham biases as real, failed to recognize effective bias mitigation strategies, and endorsed ineffective bias mitigation strategies. Furthermore, nearly everyone endorsed introspection (a strategy known to be ineffective) as an effective bias mitigation strategy. Cognitive reflection abilities were systematically related to error, such that stronger cognitive reflection was associated with less endorsement of sham biases.

AB - Bias, or systematic influences that create errors in judgment, can affect psychological evaluations in ways that lead to erroneous diagnoses and opinions. Although these errors can have especially serious consequences in the criminal justice system, little research has addressed forensic psychologists' awareness of well-known cognitive biases and debiasing strategies. We conducted a national survey with a sample of 120 randomly selected licensed psychologists with forensic interests to examine (a) their familiarity with and understanding of cognitive biases, (b) their self-reported strategies to mitigate bias, and (c) the relation of a and b to psychologists' cognitive reflection abilities. Most psychologists reported familiarity with well-known biases and distinguished these from sham biases and reported using research-identified strategies but not fictional or sham strategies. However, some psychologists reported little familiarity with actual biases, endorsed sham biases as real, failed to recognize effective bias mitigation strategies, and endorsed ineffective bias mitigation strategies. Furthermore, nearly everyone endorsed introspection (a strategy known to be ineffective) as an effective bias mitigation strategy. Cognitive reflection abilities were systematically related to error, such that stronger cognitive reflection was associated with less endorsement of sham biases.

KW - Bias

KW - Cognitive reflection

KW - Forensic evaluation

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072618112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072618112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/law0000212

DO - 10.1037/law0000212

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072618112

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

ER -