‘Guilty, no doubt’: detention provoking confirmation bias in judges’ guilt assessments and debiasing techniques

References

• Appleby, S., & Kassin, S. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000080
   Google Scholar
• Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19
   Google Scholar
• Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The ‘elasticity’ of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanck, P. D., Rosenthal, R., & Hazzard Cordell, L. D. (1985). The appearance of justice: Judges’ verbal and nonverbal behavior in criminal trials. Stanford Law Review, 38, 89–164. Retrieved from http://bbi.syr.edu/publications/blanck_docs/1985-1994/38StanLRev89.pdf doi: 10.2307/1228603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushway, S. D., Owens, E. G., & Piehl, A. M. (2012). Sentencing guidelines and judicial disrection: Quasi-experimental evidence from human calculation errors. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9, 291–298. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16961.pdf doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01254.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Y. C., Chen, K. P., Lin, C. C., & Liu, Y.-S. (2013). Anchoring effects in real litigation: An empirical study. Retrieved from https://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/lawandeconomics/workshops/Documents/Paper%207.Chang.Anchoring%20Effect%20in%20Real%20Litigation-%20An%20Empirical%20Study.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, A. P., & Sealy, W. R. (1973). Jurors and their verdicts. The Modern Law Review, 36, 496–508. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/stable/1094798 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1973.tb01381.x
   Google Scholar
• Costanzo, M., Shaked-Schroer, N., & Vinson, K. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 231–247. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.491.5048&rep=rep1&type=pdf doi: 10.1037/h0047358
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dawson, E., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (2002). Motivated reasoning and performance on the Wason selection task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1379–1387. http://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobbie, W., Goldin, Y., & Yang, C. S. (2018). The effects of pretrial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. American Economic Review, 108, 201–240. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doob, A., & Kirshenbaum, H. (1972). Some empirical evidence on the effect of S.12 of the Canada evidence act upon an accused. Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88–96. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clwqrty15&div=15&id=&page
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 109–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1981). The process of sentencing adult felons: A causal analysis of judicial decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), The trial process (pp. 413–458). New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Euvrard, E., & Leclerc, C. (2017). Pre-trial detention and guilt pleas: Inducement or coercion? Punishment & Society, 19, 525–542. http://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516670153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, Y., Schurr, A., & Teichman, D. (2014). Anchoring legal standards. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13, 298–329. http://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitousi, D. & Wenger, M. J. (2011). Processing capacity under perceptual and cognitive load: A closer look at load theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 781–798. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldkamp, J. S. (1980). The effects of detention on judicial decisions: A closer look. The Justice System Journal, 5, 234–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. (1980). The totalitarian ego. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618. Retrieved from http://psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/psy430s2001/Greenberg%20Totalitarian%20Ego%20Am%20Psychol%201980.pdf doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hans, V. P., & Doob, A. N. (1975). Section 12 of the Canada evidence act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 19, 235–253. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1480&context=facpub
   Google Scholar
• Hauschildt v. Denmark, The European Court of Human Rights, 24th May 1989, ECHR, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), A154. Retrieved from http://freecases.eu/Doc/CourtAct/4524998
   Google Scholar
• Haverkamp, B. E. (1993). Confirmatory bias in hypothesis testing for client-identified and counsel self-generated hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 303–315. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.40.3.303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (1990). An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1967). The American jury. Washington and Lee Law Review, XXIV, 158–175. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3710&context=wlulr
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D. (1990). Designing good experiments to test “bad” hypotheses. In J. Shrager, & P. Langler (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 355–402). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Kolling, N., & Hunt, L. T. (2015). Divide and conquer: Strategic decision areas. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 616–618. https://doi:10.1038/nn.4005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 256–270. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing: The brain’s art of mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674183940
   Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D. (2002). Attentional control: Brief and prolonged. Psychological Research, 66, 220–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0097-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaBerge, D., Brown, V., Carter, M., Bash, D., & Hartley, A. (1991). Reducing the effect of adjacent distractors by narrowing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 65–76. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.17.1.65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landes, W. M. (1973). The bail system: An economic approach. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1086/467492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange, N. D., Thomas, R. D., Dana, J., & Dawes, R. M. (2011). Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 178–187. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, N., Hirst, A., & de Fockert, J. W. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidén, M., Gräns, M., & Juslin, P. (2018). The presumption of guilt in suspect interrogations: Apprehension as a trigger of confirmation bias and debiasing techniques. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/lhb0000287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morera, O. F., & Budescu, D. V. (1998). A psychometric analysis of the “divide and conquer” principle in multicriteria decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 187–206. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1006/obhd.1998.2791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, G. D., & Ditto, P. H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotyped-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, G. D., & Stansbury, J. A. (2009). The dark side of self-affirmation: Confirmation bias and illusory correlation response to threatening information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (2004). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditions and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Dragan, W. (1993). Information relevance, working memory, and the consideration of alternatives. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 759–778. http://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Sullivan, J. A. (1991). Data selection in a minimal hypothesis testing task. Acta Psychologica, 76, 293–305. http://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(91)90023-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Council for Crime Prevention, Persons suspected of crimes. (2016a). Final statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2017-03-30-anmalda-brott-2016.html
   Google Scholar
• The National Council for Crime Prevention, Reported Crimes. (2016b). Final statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2017-03-30-anmalda-brott-2016.html
   Google Scholar
• The National Courts Administration, Courts Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Publikationer/Statistik/domstolsstatistik_2017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The National Courts Administration, Internal Statistics Database, May 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–230. http://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 315–334. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1989). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis testing model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 297–339. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60417-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, J. J., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2013). Altering attention in adjudication. UCLA Law Review, 60, 1588–1618. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2173&context=facpub
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, J. J., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2015). Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 696–739. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2932323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajsic, J., Wilson, D. E., & Pratt, J. (2015). Confirmation bias in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 1353–1364. http://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000090
   Google Scholar
• Rankin, A. (1964). The effect of pretrial detention. New York Law Review, 39, 641–656.
   Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. (2010). Blindness to alternative scenarios in evidence evaluation. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 153–163. http://doi.org/10.1002/jip.116 doi: 10.1002/jip.126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353–373. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022312716354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880–892. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1989). Decision traps: Ten barriers to brilliant decision-making and how to overcome them. New York: Simon & Schutzer.
   Google Scholar
• Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2015). From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors’ decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 294–310. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00001-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (1993). Other vs. self-generated hypotheses in scientific discovery. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), Proceedings of the fiftheenth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (p. 900). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 153–168. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00229.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwenk, C. R., & Cosier, R. A. (1993). The effects of consensus and devil’s advocacy on strategic decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 126–139. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01056.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. C., & Greene, E. (2005). Conduct and its consequences: Attempts at debiasing jury judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-5692-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022325019080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Swedish Government Bill, Prop. 1992/93:25 om handläggning av brottmål efter rättspsykiatrisk undersökning. Retrieved from https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/handlaggning-av-brottmal-efter-rattspsykiatrisk_GG0325
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish Government Bills, Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv, NJA II 1943.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish Government Official Reports, SOU 1938:44. Processlagsberedningens förslag till rättegångsbalk.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Philadelphia: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85. https://doi.org/0033-2909/91/i3.00 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon Gordon, R. (2004). Social cognition and section 12 of the Canada evidence act: Can jurors ’properly’ use criminal record evidence? Simon Fraser University, 3, 1–340.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, W. (2015). The effect of confirmation bias in criminal investigative decision making. Walden University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/docview/1668379477?pq-origsite=summon
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. R. (2003). The effect of pretrial detention on imprisonment decisions. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F073401680302800206 doi: 10.1177/073401680302800206
   Google Scholar
• Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. (2005). Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding (Paper 20). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lsrp_papers/20
   Google Scholar
• Wistrich, A. J., Rachlinski, J. J., & Guthrie, C. (2015). Heart versus head: Do judges follow the law or follow their feelings? Texas Law Review, 93, 856–911. Retrieved from http://www.texaslrev.com/heart-versus-head-do-judges-follow-the-law-or-follow-their-feelings/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeisel, H., & Callahan, T. (1963). Split trials and time-saving: A statistical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 76, 1606–1625. https://doi.org/10.2307/1338887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar