Is Hindsight Really 20/20?: The Impact of Outcome Information on the Decision-Making Process

Beltrani, Amanda; Reed, Amanda L.; Zapf, Patricia A.; Otto, Randy K.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2018.1505790

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hindsight bias can negatively impact legal decisions in criminal as well as medical contexts (Giroux et al, 2016; Harley, 2007; Hugh & Dekker, 2009). We include in this review projects that found evidence of hindsight bias among forensic mental health experts (Beltrani et al, 2018; LeBourgeois et al, 2007). The same is true for the confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), which describes people’s tendency to focus on and look for information that confirms their initial hypothesis while ignoring contradictory information or alternative explanations.…”

Section: What Is Cognitive Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

Neal¹,

Lienert²,

Denne³

et al. 2022

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Cognitive biases can impact experts' judgments and decisions. We offer a broad descriptive model of how bias affects human judgment. Although studies have explored the role of cognitive biases and debiasing techniques in forensic mental health, we conducted the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings. Hypotheses. Given the exploratory nature of this review, we did not test formal hypotheses. General research questions included the proportion of studies focusing on cognitive biases and/or debiasing, the research methods applied, the cognitive biases and debiasing strategies empirically studied in the forensic context, their effects on forensic mental health decisions, and effect sizes. Method. A systematic search of PsycINFO and Google Scholar resulted in 22 records comprising 23 studies in the United States, Canada, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We extracted data on participants, context, methods, and results. Results. Most studies focused only on cognitive biases (k = 16, 69.6%), with fewer investigating ways to address them (k = 7, 30.4%). Of the 17 studies that tested for biases, 10 found significant effects (58.8%), four found partial effects (23.5%), and three found no effects (17.6%). Foci included general perceptions of biases; adversarial allegiance; bias blind spot; hindsight and confirmation biases; moral disengagement; primacy and recency effects; interview suggestibility; and cross-cultural, racial, and gender biases. Of the seven debiasing-related studies, nearly all (k = 6) focused at least in part on the general perception of debiasing strategies, with three testing for specific effects (i.e., cognitive bias training, consider-the-opposite, and introspection caution), two of which yielded significant effects. Conclusions. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity limited quantitative comparability. Future research could build on the existing literature to develop or adapt effective debiasing strategies in collaboration with practitioners to improve the quality of forensic mental health decisions. Public Significance StatementEvidence of bias in forensic mental health emerged in ways consistent with what we know about human judgment broadly. We know less about how to debias judgments-an important frontier for future research. Better understanding how bias works and developing effective debiasing strategies tailored to the forensic mental health context hold promise for improving quality. Until then, we can use what we know now to limit bias in our work.

show abstract

Section: What Is Cognitive Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

Neal¹,

Lienert²,

Denne³

et al. 2022

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extent to which bias impacts forensic evaluations is unknown, although consideration of the issue of potential bias and inquiry into ways in which potential bias might be mitigated have become the focus of research and commentary over the past few years. [93][94][95] Specific issues, such as hindsight bias, 96 and bias awareness 97 have been studied with respect to forensic evaluations. A survey of 1099 forensic evaluators indicated that most evaluators expressed concern over cognitive bias but held the incorrect view that bias can be reduced by sheer willpower.…”

Section: Bias In Forensic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

Beltrani

Zapf

2019

CNS Spectr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in the 1960s, a steady decline in the number of inpatient psychiatric beds has occurred across the United States, primarily as a result of stricter civil commitment criteria and a societal movement toward deinstitutionalization. Concomitant with this decrease in psychiatric beds has been a steady increase in the number of mentally ill individuals who are arrested and processed through the criminal justice system as defendants. One consequence of this has been an explosion in the number of defendants referred for evaluations of their present mental state—adjudicative competence—and subsequently found incompetent and ordered to complete a period of competency restoration. This has resulted in forensic mental health systems that are overwhelmed by the demand for services and that are unable to meet the needs of these defendants in a timely manner. In many states, lawsuits have been brought by defendants who have had their liberties restricted as a result of lengthy confinements in jail awaiting forensic services. The stress on state-wide forensic systems has become so widespread that this has reached the level of a near-national crisis. Many states and national organizations are currently attempting to study these issues and develop creative strategies for relieving this overburdening of forensic mental health systems nationwide. The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the research on competence to stand trial and to highlight those issues that might be relevant to the issue of criminalization of individuals with mental illness in the United States.

show abstract

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

Neal

Hight

Howatt

et al. 2018

Advances in Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is Hindsight Really 20/20?: The Impact of Outcome Information on the Decision-Making Process

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

Competence to stand trial and criminalization: an overview of the research

The Cognitive and Social Psychological Bases of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About