When psychological evaluators are asked to provide their expert opinions in legal proceedings, they are expected to do so in an objective and unbiased way. The statutory requirements regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in many countries often cite objectivity and reliability as standards. However, as is true in many realms of human decision-making, the field of forensic psychological assessment is fraught with bias. In this article, we discuss several lines of research that have investigated bias in forensic psychological evaluations. We also discuss emerging lines of research involving methods to measure and reduce bias. We conclude with a call for structured self-monitoring as an important strategy for forensic evaluators to mitigate bias in their work.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.
2.
BergeronM. L. (1994). The use of psychiatric expertise in the forensic context: Balm or blunder. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 14, 221.
3.
BoccacciniM. T.ChevalierC. S.MurrieD. C.VarelaJ. G. (2017). Psychopathy Checklist—Revised use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 29, 592–614. doi:10.1177/1079063215612443
4.
BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD.MurrieD. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower psychopathy scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 262–283. doi:10.1037/a00114523
5.
BrodskyS. L. (1991). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
BrodskyS. L. (1999). The expert expert witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
CallahanL. A.SilverE. (1998). Factors associated with the conditional release of persons acquitted by reason of insanity: A decision tree approach. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 147–163. doi:10.1023/A:1025790003139
8.
ChevalierC. S.BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.VarelaJ. G. (2015). Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance?Law and Human Behavior, 39, 209–218. doi:10.1037/lhb0000114
9.
CommonsM. L.MillerP. M.GutheilT. G. (2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 70–75.
10.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
11.
FaustD.ZiskinJ. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31–35. doi:10.1126/science.3291114
12.
GowensmithW. N.McCallumK. E.JenningsM.JohnsonC. (2019, March). Monitoring potential bias within a forensic evaluation agency. Paper Accepted for Presentation at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-law Society, Portland, OR.
13.
GowensmithW. N.SmithK. P.YeagerK. N. (2018, March). Monitoring one’s personal bias in forensic evaluation: A how-to guide. Paper Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Memphis, TN.
14.
HagenM. A. (1997). Whores of the court: The fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American justice. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
15.
HareR. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
18.
KoehlerD. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499–519. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.110.3.499
19.
LordC. G.LepperM. R.PrestonE. (1985). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1243. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.47.6.1231
20.
McCallumK. E.MacLeanN.GowensmithW. N. (2015). The impact of defendant ethnicity on the psycho-legal opinion of forensic evaluators. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 39, 6–12. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.015
21.
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012).
22.
MillerA.RufinoK.BoccacciniM. T.JacksonR.MurrieD. C. (2011). On individual differences in person perception: Raters’ personality traits relate to their psychopathy checklist-revised scoring tendencies. Assessment, 18, 253–260. doi:10.1177/1073191111402460
23.
MossmanD. M. (2013). When forensic examiners disagree: Bias, or just inaccuracy?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 40–55.
24.
MurrieD. C. (2017, August). Invited full-day workshop: Reducing bias in pursuit of more objective and accurate forensic evaluations. Workshop for Forensic Clinicians at the Annual Convention of the New Zealand Psychological Association, Christchurch, Canterbury New Zealand.
25.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.GuarneraL. A.RufinoK. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?Psychological Science, 24, 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812
26.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD.MeeksM.WoodsC.TusseyC. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. doi:10.1037/a0014897
27.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.ZapfP. A.WarrenJ. I.HendersonC. E. (2008). Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 177–193. doi:10.1037/a0013578
28.
MurrieD. C.WarrenJ. I. (2005). Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 519–524. doi:10.1037/0735–7028.36.5.519
29.
National Justice Compania Naviera S.A v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd. (2) Lloyds Reports 68-81 (1993).
30.
NealT.BrodskyS. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 58–76. doi:10.1037/law0000077
31.
NealT.GrissoT. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 202, 200–211. doi:10.1037/a0035824
32.
OttoR. K. (2013, March). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic psychological evaluation. Workshop Presented at the Annual American Psychology-law Conference, Portland, OR.
33.
ParkerG. (2016). Come see the bias inherent in the system!The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 44, 411–414.
34.
PillayA. L. (2012). The rape survivor with an intellectual disability vs. the Court. South African Journal of Psychology, 42, 312–322.
35.
ProninE.KuglerM. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 565–578.
36.
ReynardJ. (2018). Being an expert witness. In JhaS.FerrimanE. (Eds.), Medicolegal Issues in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (pp. 51–54). Springer, Cham.
37.
SimonR. J.Ahn-ReddingH. (2008). The insanity defense, the world over. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
39.
VeraL. M.BoccacciniM. T.LaxtonK.BrysonC.PenningtonC.RidgeB.MurrieD. C. (2019). How does evaluator empathy impact a forensic interview?Law and Human Behavior, 43, 56–68. doi:10.1037/lhb0000310
