‘Anyone who commits such a cruel crime, must be criminally irresponsible’: context effects in forensic psychological assessment

References

• American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th edi. APA.
   Google Scholar
• Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier, C. S., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2015). Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2018). Bias in forensic experts. Science, 360(6386), 243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92, 7998–8004. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Melinek, J., Arden, J. L., Kukucka, J., Hawkins, S., Carter, J., & Atherton, D. S. (2021). Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14697
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Morgan, R., Rando, C., & Nakhaeizadeh, S. (2017). The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: Two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(3), 832–833. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Péron, A. E., Hind, S. L., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799–809. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M. (2015). Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 1111–1112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L. J. (1983). Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & Bryan, T. S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by the instructions to disregard: The (paradoxical) case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 849–864. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297238006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazel, S., Singh, J. P., Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692–e4692. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2013). How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.28.1.50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 2–9. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/vol7/iss1/2
   Google Scholar
• Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A Brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenraadt, F., Mooij, A., & van Mulbregt, J. (2007). The mental condition in criminal law: Forensic psychiatric and psychological assessment in a residential setting. Dutch University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system: Technical manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention.
   Google Scholar
• Lockhart, J. J., & Satya-Murti, S. (2017). Diagnosing crime and diagnosing disease: Bias reduction strategies in the forensic and clinical sciences. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(6), 1534–1541. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercado, C. C., Bornstein, B. H., & Schopp, R. F. (2006). Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators. Law and Human Behavior, 30(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9055-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. (2020). Context effect and confirmation bias in criminal fact finding. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 25(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassin, E., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). The potential conflict between clinical and judicial decision making heuristics. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199904/06)17:2 < 237::aid-bsl342 > 3.0.co;2-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg Larsen, R., Jalava, J., & Griffiths, S. (2020). Are Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) psychopaths dangerous, untreatable, and without conscience? A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309(5736), 892–895. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcome. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1325–1331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615590992
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zappala, M., Reed, A. L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K. (2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 18(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2017.1413532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar