This research will examine how biases among forensic psychologists may influence the outcome of death-penalty cases. Capital punishment is an emotional issue about which many people have strongly held opinions. Although mental health professionals who work in the legal system are bound by ethical standards to practice objectively and set aside personal beliefs and opinions, evaluators who hold strong attitudes toward capital punishment may not objectively process evidence of a defendant's psychological distress in capital cases. If implicit and unrecognized bias is operating, mentally ill defendants may not always receive the appropriate treatments or legal sanctions. Whether objectivity is maintained is an empirical question with life-or-death implications.
This will be a three-part study, with an interview portion first questioning experienced forensic examiners about their experiences and their efforts to correct for perceived biases. A large national survey of forensic psychologists will follow to build on and test the bias hypotheses that emerge from study one. The third study is the first of its kind, and proposes to analyze the content of completed capital case reports for potential objectivity or bias. This series of studies represents an investigation into an unexamined area of forensic psychology.
Social psychological literature suggests that human beings may have an impossible task in divorcing decisions from cognitive and emotional biases. The potential for bias is thought to be strongest in ambiguous and emotionally salient situations. It is therefore important to examine whether in emotionally intense capital case evaluations (i.e., when examiners feel strongly in either direction about capital punishment), examiner attitudes may influence interpretations and conclusions.
Organizational ethics prescribe objective practice as a cornerstone of psychological assessments (APA Ethics Code, 2002). However, a wealth of social-psychological literature attests to the fact that human beings may have an impossible job in divorcing their decisions from a variety of cognitive and emotional biases (see e.g., Aronson, 2008; Borum et al., 1993; Garb, 1998; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Otto, 1989; Tversky & Kahneman, 1971; 1973; 1974). The prevalence and severity of these influences has been underestimated in forensic psychological evaluations (Arkes, 1989; Garb, 1998; Martindale, 2005; Murrie & Warren, 2005). Although the literature yields some information on forensic evaluator biases, there is very little research on how potential bias is handled. This series of studies was designed to examine the effect of human bias and error in clinical forensic evaluations, consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council (2009) for improvements in all forensic sciences. Four specific aims were achieved: 1) integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in compiling descriptive information about forensic psychologists’ occupational socialization processes, awareness of biases, capital punishment attitudes, and behaviors in capital case evaluations; 2) investigating how psychologists’ personal attitudes toward capital punishment influence data interpretation and conclusions in assessments of capital defendants; 3) comparing evaluator awareness of bias to implicit bias; and 4) generating hypotheses for future research on bias recognition and mitigation. The studies involved a three-part mixed-method plan, starting with a qualitative interview with board-certified psychologists (N = 20). The purpose of the first study was to explore forensic psychologists’ thoughts about and experiences with potential biases. An unexpected wealth of data emerged regarding strategies psychologists use to mitigate the effects of biases. Twenty seven unique bias correction strategies were discovered. Study two surveyed a large national sample of forensic psychologists (N = 334). Psychologists’ personal attitudes toward capital punishment systematically predicted from whom they were willing to accept capital case referrals. This novel finding has not been documented elsewhere in the literature. An analysis of actual capital case reports was undertaken in the third study to examine the report-writing behavior of forensic psychologists (N = 122 reports). Results suggest psychologists act in more biased ways in than they think they do. Individual clinicians accounted for a large portion of the variance (up to 68%) in several outcome variables indicative of potential bias. This series of studies represents an investigation into a relatively unexamined area of forensic psychology. Since bias is an issue worthy of concern, the field has a duty to teach new practitioners to become aware of and minimize the effects of potential biases. When people are made aware of their biases they work to correct for them (Wegener & Petty, 1995; Sommers, 2007; Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). Therefore, the strategies discussed herein may be beneficial for inclusion in clinical training programs to emphasize objectivity in the process of clinical judgment and decision-making. The most compelling direction for future research based on the current state of the knowledge is to systematically examine whether such strategies are able to reduce bias. What are the empirically supported strategies for bias management in clinical evaluations? The data herein provide fertile grounds for beginning these investigations. Other broad impacts of this project include that fact that seven graduate students were involved in various aspects of the research. The contact these students had with real capital cases and bias mitigation strategies may make these students more sensitive and socially responsible clinicians. In regard to dissemination of these findings, the investigators plan to attend national and international conferences to share results as well as publishing discrete pieces of this project in scientific journals.
