Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure
Abstract
In two experiments, criminal investigators (N = 50) and undergraduate students (N = 68) read a set of facts from the preliminary investigation of a homicide case. Participants' initial hypothesis regarding the crime was manipulated by providing background information implying that the prime suspect had a jealousy motive or that there might be an alternative perpetrator. Students displayed a framing effect, such that guilt was ascribed to the prime suspect only when a potential motive was presented, whereas investigators did so regardless of hypothesis, thus being less sensitive to alternative interpretations. Investigators' need for cognitive closure (NFC) moderated the effect of the hypothesis on perceptions of the strength of the evidence against the prime suspect; high (v low) NFC investigators were less likely to acknowledge inconsistencies in the material when presented with a potential motive, but were more likely to do so when made aware of the possibility of an alternative perpetrator. Interpretations are somewhat clouded by the fact that dispositional NFC did not seem to affect in a consistent manner participants' motivation toward the experimental task. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The first source of bias is the actual evidence, the Data (Level 1 in Category A); it can create empathy and sympathy, which motivates them to solve the case and have cognitive closure.
“The first source of bias is the actual evidence, the Data (Level 1 in Category A). It can create empathy and sympathy (for example, with the victim or/and their family), which motivates them to solve the case and have cognitive closure (Ask & Granhag, 2005).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Ask & Granhag, 2005
Use of reference materials causes motivation and expectations that can bias observations and interpretation of the actual evidence.
“Thus, such use of reference materials causes motivation and expectations that then can bias the observations and interpretation of the actual evidence”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Ask & Granhag, 2005
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189 · Cited by 761 · see citing works
BALDWIN, J. (1993) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Ask, Karl
- ORCID
- Ask, Karl
- Venue
- Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-63
- ISSN
- 1544-4759 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-4767
- OpenAlex
- W2050689620
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 7.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Vetenskapsrådet
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Keywords
- confirmation bias, criminal investigators, need for cognitive closure, hypothesis confirmation, framing effects, murder investigation, evidence evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review