Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

141320-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

This chapter integrates from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology the basic science of bias in human judgment as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue,

This chapter integrates from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology the basic science of bias in human judgment as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue, such as in insanity cases, child custody hearings, and psychological injuries in civil suits. The legal system itself and many people involved, such as jurors, assume mental health experts are “objective” and untainted by bias. However, basic psychological science from several branches of the discipline suggest the law’s assumption about experts’ protection from bias is wrong. Indeed, several empirical studies now show clear evidence of (unintentional) bias in forensic mental health experts’ judgments and decisions. In this chapter, we explain the science of how and why human judgments are susceptible to various kinds of bias. We describe dual-process theories from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology that can help explain these biases. We review the empirical evidence to date specifically about cognitive and social psychological biases in forensic mental health judgments, weaving in related literature about biases in other types of expert judgment, with hypotheses about how forensic experts are likely affected by these biases. We close with a discussion of directions for future research and practice.

ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Hight, Morgan (Author) / Howatt, Brian C. (Author) / Hamza, Cassandra (Author)
Created2017-04-30
130882-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
An individual’s reputation can be beneficial or detrimental to their exchanges with others,
and these exchanges may be critical for achieving evolutionary goals, such as reproduction.
Depending on their reputation, an individual may or may not gain access to resources in order to
achieve their evolutionary goals. Reputation is typically described as being

An individual’s reputation can be beneficial or detrimental to their exchanges with others,
and these exchanges may be critical for achieving evolutionary goals, such as reproduction.
Depending on their reputation, an individual may or may not gain access to resources in order to
achieve their evolutionary goals. Reputation is typically described as being “positive” and
“negative,” but the current study aimed to identify potential nuances to reputations beyond the
traditional dichotomy. It was hypothesized that different types of reputations (such as “friendly”,
“dishonest”, and “aggressive”) would group together in categories beyond “positive” and
“negative.” Additionally, individuals with different life history strategies might find different
reputations important, because the reputations they find most important may help them get the
kinds of resources they need to attain their specific evolutionary goals. Therefore, it was also
predicted that the importance individuals place on different types of reputations would vary as a
function of life history strategy. Exploratory factor analysis identified a five factor structure for
reputations. Individuals also placed varying levels of importance on different types of
reputations, and found some reputations more important than others depending on their life
history strategy. This study demonstrates that reputational information is more nuanced than
previously thought and future research should consider that there may be more than just
“positive” and “negative” reputations in social interactions.
ContributorsPatterson, Danielle Nicole (Author) / Aktipis, Athena (Thesis director) / Corbin, William (Committee member) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Ayers, Jessica D. (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Human Evolution & Social Change (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12