Authors' Response

Curley, Lee J.; Munro, James; Lages, Martin; MacLean, Rory; Murray, Jennifer

doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14273

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One difference that should be noted between the current study and Zapf et al's study is that we eliminated questions about the effects of irrelevant contextual information (Zapf et al, 2018, p. 5, Table 2, #5-7). Despite the fact that research suggests irrelevant contextual information can result in bias and errors in other areas of forensic science (Dror, 2012, Dror, 2018Dror et al, 2006, Dror et al, 2015Kukucka & Kassin, 2014;Nakhaeizadeh et al, 2014), there is debate about what type of information should be considered irrelevant contextual information in these fields (Curley et al, 2019(Curley et al, , 2020Dror & Murrie, 2018;Gardner et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020). Further, we were unable to locate any agreed-upon definition of exactly what constitutes irrelevant contextual information specifically for FREs.…”

Section: Potential Sources Of Bias In Fresmentioning

confidence: 88%

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views about Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Kamorowski

Ruiter

Schreuder

et al. 2022

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) has increased significantly over the past decades, with research documenting variation between countries. The use of SRAIs, their perceived utility and potential for mitigating bias in forensic risk evaluations (FREs) was investigated in a survey of Dutch forensic mental health practitioners (N ¼ 110) We found generally positive views regarding SRAI utility. Bias in FREs was of concern to respondents. We found no evidence of a bias blind spot (the belief that oneself is less prone to bias than peers/colleagues). SRAIs were rated as the most effective debiasing strategy, but respondents also endorsed introspection. There were few differences in beliefs about sources of bias or debiasing strategies between respondents who had bias training and those who had not, suggesting the need for development of effective strategies to mitigate bias and training related to bias in FREs.

show abstract

Section: Potential Sources Of Bias In Fresmentioning

confidence: 88%

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views about Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Kamorowski

Ruiter

Schreuder

et al. 2022

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One difference that should be noted between the current study and Zapf et al's study is that we eliminated questions about the effects of irrelevant contextual information (Zapf et al, 2018, p. 5, Table 2, #5-7). Despite the fact that research suggests irrelevant contextual information can result in bias and errors in other areas of forensic science (Dror, 2012(Dror, , 2018Dror et al, 2006Dror et al, , 2015Kukucka & Kassin, 2014;Nakhaeizadeh et al, 2014), there is debate about what type of information should be considered irrelevant contextual information in these fields (Curley et al, 2019(Curley et al, , 2020Dror & Murrie, 2017;Gardner et al, 2019;Thompson, 2020).…”

Section: Potential Sources Of Bias In Fresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views About Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Kamorowski¹,

Ruiter²,

Schreuder³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report findings from a survey of Dutch forensic mental health practitioners (N = 110) about use and the perceived utility of specific structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) for forensic risk evaluations (FREs). Overall, respondents’ views of specific SRAIs were positive. They had concerns about potential bias and errors in FREs. Yet, contrary to prior surveys, we found no evidence for the tendency to think of oneself as less prone to bias than others, known as the bias blind spot. Similar to previous surveys, our respondents also endorsed introspection as an effective method to mitigate bias, whereas research indicates it is not. Finally, they rated SRAIs as the most effective debiasing strategy. We found few differences in beliefs about bias or debiasing strategies between respondents who had cognitive bias training and those who had not, suggesting the need for research to gain insight into effective debiasing strategies and the development of specific forensic bias training.

show abstract

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.

show abstract

Authors' Response

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views about Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views about Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views About Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About