A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

借记 心理学 心理信息 认知偏差 背景(考古学) 心理健康 认知 认知心理学 确认偏差 法医心理学 社会心理学 应用心理学 认知偏差修正 临床心理学 梅德林 精神科 古生物学 生物 法学 政治学
作者
Tess M. S. Neal,Pascal Lienert,Emily Denne,Jay P. Singh
出处
期刊:Law and Human Behavior [American Psychological Association]
卷期号:46 (2): 99-120 被引量:47
标识
DOI:10.1037/lhb0000482
摘要

Cognitive biases can impact experts' judgments and decisions. We offer a broad descriptive model of how bias affects human judgment. Although studies have explored the role of cognitive biases and debiasing techniques in forensic mental health, we conducted the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings.Given the exploratory nature of this review, we did not test formal hypotheses. General research questions included the proportion of studies focusing on cognitive biases and/or debiasing, the research methods applied, the cognitive biases and debiasing strategies empirically studied in the forensic context, their effects on forensic mental health decisions, and effect sizes.A systematic search of PsycINFO and Google Scholar resulted in 22 records comprising 23 studies in the United States, Canada, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We extracted data on participants, context, methods, and results.Most studies focused only on cognitive biases (k = 16, 69.6%), with fewer investigating ways to address them (k = 7, 30.4%). Of the 17 studies that tested for biases, 10 found significant effects (58.8%), four found partial effects (23.5%), and three found no effects (17.6%). Foci included general perceptions of biases; adversarial allegiance; bias blind spot; hindsight and confirmation biases; moral disengagement; primacy and recency effects; interview suggestibility; and cross-cultural, racial, and gender biases. Of the seven debiasing-related studies, nearly all (k = 6) focused at least in part on the general perception of debiasing strategies, with three testing for specific effects (i.e., cognitive bias training, consider-the-opposite, and introspection caution), two of which yielded significant effects.Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity limited quantitative comparability. Future research could build on the existing literature to develop or adapt effective debiasing strategies in collaboration with practitioners to improve the quality of forensic mental health decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
www发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
1秒前
1秒前
CipherSage应助Qiao_ZH采纳,获得10
2秒前
汉堡包应助sunrise采纳,获得10
3秒前
1q完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
4秒前
paulmichael发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
wyy发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
4秒前
liu完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
YingLi发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
Wujt完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
冷傲书萱发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
TTT发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
zuoyou发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
6秒前
7秒前
上官若男应助123采纳,获得10
7秒前
科研通AI6.1应助QXS采纳,获得10
7秒前
7秒前
8秒前
quan关注了科研通微信公众号
8秒前
薛璞发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
星辰完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
咩夸完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
蓝色的鱼发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
11秒前
小飞飞发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
小鞋完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
13秒前
13秒前
13秒前
123关闭了123文献求助
13秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients, Ninth edition 5000
Aerospace Standards Index - 2026 ASIN2026 3000
Signals, Systems, and Signal Processing 610
Discrete-Time Signals and Systems 610
Social Work and Social Welfare: An Invitation(7th Edition) 410
Medical Management of Pregnancy Complicated by Diabetes 400
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 纳米技术 有机化学 物理 生物化学 化学工程 计算机科学 复合材料 内科学 催化作用 光电子学 物理化学 电极 冶金 遗传学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6056155
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 7887415
关于积分的说明 16289678
捐赠科研通 5201556
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2783131
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1765957
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1646776