Loading…

Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, sp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.58-76
Main Authors: Neal, Tess M. S, Brodsky, Stanley L
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a330t-39898cc7ee44fa5ccdf431e8f02341431d0d4741909a0b0cd95ab7988ffbe2973
cites
container_end_page 76
container_issue 1
container_start_page 58
container_title Psychology, public policy, and law
container_volume 22
creator Neal, Tess M. S
Brodsky, Stanley L
description A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but 1 of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help (such as introspection), focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination. Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/law0000077
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1764143806</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1764143806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a330t-39898cc7ee44fa5ccdf431e8f02341431d0d4741909a0b0cd95ab7988ffbe2973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEFLwzAUgIsoOKcXf0HAgyBUk6ZdkqOOTYWJA_Uc3tJky6hNTVJl_95Uxb3Le4eP78GXZecEXxNM2U0DX3gYxg6yERFU5KQq-GG6MZvkXDBynJ2EsE1IxZgYZf3ced0Gq9Ay7NTGNW5tQwyXaKm90l20rg3IGXRnISBoa7R0UbfRQoOmznutBgK9RA9Rr60OyLboX_mUyAQ-aGjiBs0-oenhx3iaHRlogj772-PsbT57nT7ki-f7x-ntIgdKccyp4IIrxbQuSwOVUrUpKdHc4IKWJJ01rktWEoEF4BVWtahgxQTnxqx0IRgdZxe_3s67j16HKLeu9216KQmbDAqOJ4m6-qWUdyF4bWTn7Tv4nSRYDlnlPusehg5kl5qBj1Y1Oqg-5WjjwMqikERWnH4D7gt7lA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1764143806</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations</title><source>Nexis UK</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Neal, Tess M. S ; Brodsky, Stanley L</creator><contributor>Lamb, Michael E</contributor><creatorcontrib>Neal, Tess M. S ; Brodsky, Stanley L ; Lamb, Michael E</creatorcontrib><description>A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but 1 of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help (such as introspection), focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination. Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-8971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/law0000077</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Cognitive Bias ; Decision Making ; Evaluation ; Female ; Forensic Evaluation ; Forensic Psychology ; Human ; Judgment ; Male ; Mental Health ; Perception ; Psychologists</subject><ispartof>Psychology, public policy, and law, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.58-76</ispartof><rights>2016 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2016, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a330t-39898cc7ee44fa5ccdf431e8f02341431d0d4741909a0b0cd95ab7988ffbe2973</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-9528-8638</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Lamb, Michael E</contributor><creatorcontrib>Neal, Tess M. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Stanley L</creatorcontrib><title>Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations</title><title>Psychology, public policy, and law</title><description>A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but 1 of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help (such as introspection), focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination. Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.</description><subject>Cognitive Bias</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forensic Evaluation</subject><subject>Forensic Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mental Health</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><issn>1076-8971</issn><issn>1939-1528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkEFLwzAUgIsoOKcXf0HAgyBUk6ZdkqOOTYWJA_Uc3tJky6hNTVJl_95Uxb3Le4eP78GXZecEXxNM2U0DX3gYxg6yERFU5KQq-GG6MZvkXDBynJ2EsE1IxZgYZf3ced0Gq9Ay7NTGNW5tQwyXaKm90l20rg3IGXRnISBoa7R0UbfRQoOmznutBgK9RA9Rr60OyLboX_mUyAQ-aGjiBs0-oenhx3iaHRlogj772-PsbT57nT7ki-f7x-ntIgdKccyp4IIrxbQuSwOVUrUpKdHc4IKWJJ01rktWEoEF4BVWtahgxQTnxqx0IRgdZxe_3s67j16HKLeu9216KQmbDAqOJ4m6-qWUdyF4bWTn7Tv4nSRYDlnlPusehg5kl5qBj1Y1Oqg-5WjjwMqikERWnH4D7gt7lA</recordid><startdate>201602</startdate><enddate>201602</enddate><creator>Neal, Tess M. S</creator><creator>Brodsky, Stanley L</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9528-8638</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201602</creationdate><title>Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations</title><author>Neal, Tess M. S ; Brodsky, Stanley L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a330t-39898cc7ee44fa5ccdf431e8f02341431d0d4741909a0b0cd95ab7988ffbe2973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Cognitive Bias</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forensic Evaluation</topic><topic>Forensic Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mental Health</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neal, Tess M. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodsky, Stanley L</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neal, Tess M. S</au><au>Brodsky, Stanley L</au><au>Lamb, Michael E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations</atitle><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle><date>2016-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>58</spage><epage>76</epage><pages>58-76</pages><issn>1076-8971</issn><eissn>1939-1528</eissn><abstract>A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the "stages of change" model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the "bias blind spot." Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues' influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but 1 of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help (such as introspection), focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination. Finally, debiasing strategies were considered with respect to future directions for research and forensic practice.</abstract><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/law0000077</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9528-8638</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1076-8971
ispartof Psychology, public policy, and law, 2016-02, Vol.22 (1), p.58-76
issn 1076-8971
1939-1528
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1764143806
source Nexis UK; PsycARTICLES
subjects Cognitive Bias
Decision Making
Evaluation
Female
Forensic Evaluation
Forensic Psychology
Human
Judgment
Male
Mental Health
Perception
Psychologists
title Forensic Psychologists' Perceptions of Bias and Potential Correction Strategies in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T10%3A22%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forensic%20Psychologists'%20Perceptions%20of%20Bias%20and%20Potential%20Correction%20Strategies%20in%20Forensic%20Mental%20Health%20Evaluations&rft.jtitle=Psychology,%20public%20policy,%20and%20law&rft.au=Neal,%20Tess%20M.%20S&rft.date=2016-02&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=58&rft.epage=76&rft.pages=58-76&rft.issn=1076-8971&rft.eissn=1939-1528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/law0000077&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1764143806%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a330t-39898cc7ee44fa5ccdf431e8f02341431d0d4741909a0b0cd95ab7988ffbe2973%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1764143806&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true