Despite Miller's (1969) now-famous clarion call to "give psychology away" to the general public, scientific psychology has done relatively little to combat festering problems of ideological extremism and both inter- and intragroup conflict. After proposing that ideological extremism is a significant contributor to world conflict and that confirmation bias and several related biases are significant contributors to ideological extremism, we raise a crucial scientific question: Can debiasing the general public against such biases promote human welfare by tempering ideological extremism? We review the knowns and unknowns of debiasing techniques against confirmation bias, examine potential barriers to their real-world efficacy, and delineate future directions for research on debiasing. We argue that research on combating extreme confirmation bias should be among psychological science's most pressing priorities.

No abstract

Psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is a condition marked by a constellation of traits, including callousness, guiltlessness, dishonesty, superficial charm, egocentricity and poor impulse control. Psychopathy should not be confused with antisocial personality disorder, although these conditions overlap; the former is a largely personality-based condition, the latter a largely behavior-based condition. Most recent evidence suggests that psychopathy is not an all-or-none phenomenon, but rather falls on a continuum with normality. Moreover, psychopathy broadly construed appears not to be a homogeneous condition, but rather a heterogeneous category containing at least two potentially overlapping subtypes. Psychopathy is more common among males than females, but is not only a male disorder. Despite some clinical assertions to the contrary, psychopathy is not associated with a complete absence of emotional responsiveness. Although psychopathy is a risk factor for violence, this heightened risk appears to be modest. Psychopathy bears a negligible or negative association with psychosis, and is not presently an adequate basis for a 'not guilty verdict by reason of insanity' defense. Clinical lore notwithstanding, questionnaires can help to detect many of the core features of psychopathy.

Cognitive biases can permeate everyday clinical decision-making processes and adversely affect the accuracy of clinical judgments, even among the many practitioners who are capable, knowledgeable, and highly intelligent. Reviews summarizing the cognitive biases that affect clinical decision-making have largely targeted physicians rather than practicing psychologists. Further, much of the writing on this topic presumes a level of familiarity with technical aspects of the decision-making literature that may not be possessed by many practitioners. We present a contemporary and accessible introduction to the cognitive pitfalls that can adversely affect clinical decision-making for practicing psychologists, including clinical supervisors. We briefly review the dual-process model of cognition and describe biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies that are germane to a diverse range of clinical practices in psychology, along with clinically relevant examples. We conclude with a brief summary of the preliminary evidence for bias management strategies that may improve clinical accuracy. Owing in part to metabiases such as bias blind spot, practicing clinicians and supervisors should strive to acquire insight into their decisionmaking processes and learn how they can go awry. Public Significance StatementResearch suggests that cognitive biases are pervasive in mental health professionals' decisionmaking and can diminish the accuracy of clinical judgments, even among skilled practitioners. This user-friendly introduction reviews biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies that are particularly relevant to psychological practice and supervision. Decreasing reliance on working memory and bolstering psychoeducation may alleviate the effects of bias on clinical decision-making.