Cognitive Bias in Medicolegal Judgments

Abstract

As humans, our perceptions and judgments are naturally colored by our beliefs, experiences, and desires. Consequently, two individuals with different mindsets or working in different contexts may interpret the same information in markedly different ways (i.e., cognitive bias), especially when that information is ambiguous. In forensic and medicolegal settings, cognitive bias can influence expert decision-making in ways that produce costly miscarriages of justice. In this chapter, we first review the sources of cognitive bias, including irrelevant contextual information, base rate expectations, stress, and allegiance. Then, we review research showing that cognitive bias can affect medical diagnoses of living individuals as well as postmortem manner-of-death judgments, and we discuss the reactions—both positive and negative—to these findings. Lastly, we describe best practices for mitigating the impact of cognitive bias and maximizing the value of medicolegal judgments.

“Not Scientific” to Whom? Laypeople Misjudge Manner of Death Determinations as Scientific and Definitive

“…Medicolegal judgments are likewise susceptible to cognitive bias, such that extraneous information can lead medical experts to interpret the same injury as either criminal or accidental (see Kukucka & Findley, 2023). In one study, for example, physicians and nurses more often misdiagnosed an accidental pediatric leg fracture as child abuse if led to believe that the child's parents were unmarried and had a strained relationship-information that should have no bearing on their medical judgment (Anderst et al, 2016).…”

Growing pains of addressing cognitive bias in legal contexts: A commentary on Berryessa et al. (2022)

“…Ten years ago, my colleagues and I likewise argued that cognitive bias can affect forensic science analyses (Kassin et al, 2013), which—not unlike judicial decisions—were theretofore widely considered impartial. Since then, we have made progress in terms of mitigating cognitive bias in forensic laboratories, but not without resistance and other obstacles (see Kukucka & Dror, 2022; Kukucka & Findley, 2022). Here, I reflect on those challenges and how our experiences might inform similar efforts to combat bias in the judiciary.…”