Cited by 114Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsDeception detection and forensic psychologyPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations

Open access
Neal, Tess M. S., Brodsky, Stanley L.·2016·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Abstract

A qualitative study with 20 board-certified forensic psychologists was followed up by a mail survey of 351 forensic psychologists in this mixed-methods investigation of examiner bias awareness and strategies used to debias forensic judgments. Rich qualitative data emerged about awareness of bias, specific biasing situations that recur in forensic evaluations, and potential debiasing strategies. The continuum of bias awareness in forensic evaluators mapped cogently onto the “stages of change” model. Evaluators perceived themselves as less vulnerable to bias than their colleagues, consistent with the phenomenon called the “bias blind spot.” Recurring situations that posed challenges for forensic clinicians included disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, disgust or anger toward the offense, limited cultural competency, preexisting values, colleagues’ influences, and protecting referral streams. Twenty-five debiasing strategies emerged in the qualitative study, all but one of which rated as highly useful in the quantitative survey. Some of those strategies are consistent with empirical evidence about their effectiveness, but others have been shown to be ineffective. We identified which strategies do not help, focused on promising strategies with empirical support, discussed additional promising strategies not mentioned by participants, and described new strategies generated by these participants that have not yet been subjected to empirical examination. Finally, debiasi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/law0000077

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Cognitive bias impacts hard-working and dedicated people who are not aware of their biases, the bias blind spot.

    “This is partially due to the fact that cognitive bias impacts hard-working and dedicated people who are not aware of their biases (the bias blind spot means that people are relatively blind to their own biases (Pronin et al., 2004; see also Neal & Brodsky, 2016).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Neal & Brodsky, 2016

  • Disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, and disgust or anger toward the offense, may create bias.

    “Furthermore, disliking or feeling sympathy for the defendant, and disgust or anger toward the offense, may also create bias (Neal & Brodsky, 2016).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Neal & Brodsky, 2016

  • The bias blind spot and the implicit nature of cognitive bias make it hard for people to acknowledge bias and be transparent about it.

    “The bias blind spot (Neal & Brodsky, 2016; Pronin et al., 2002, 2004) and the implicit nature of cognitive bias make it hard for people to acknowledge its existence, let alone to be transparent about it”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Neal & Brodsky, 2016

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 85 · Cited by 114

Authors
Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Neal, Tess M. S.
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published
2016-02
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
58-76
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
OpenAlex
W2586652684
Cited by
114
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES1228559)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
forensic psychologists, evaluator bias, bias awareness, debiasing strategies, forensic psychiatric assessment, bias blind spot, stages of change, cultural competence

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