Notwendigkeit einer kritischen Prüfung von Methoden zur Lügenerkennung und Vernehmungstaktiken zur Informationsgewinnung von Beschuldigten: Ein Positionspapier aus Psychologie und Polizei

May, Lennart; Schneider, Till R.; Okulicz-Kozaryn, Malgorzata

doi:10.51625/pdr20220205

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In its worst version, it may then lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy as guilt presumption fosters an interrogation style that makes the interviewed person more nervous and defensive (Lidén et al 2018c), which is then interpreted as a sign of guilt (Kassin et al 2003), even if innocent people react the same way (Hill et al 2010). Hence, guilt-presumptive interrogation may produce false confessions (Costanzo and Costanzo 2014;May et al 2022;Volbert 2013). Still, when it comes to trial, the defense may take all legal measures to challenge the perspective of the prosecution.…”

Section: Confirmation Bias In Legal Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

May a witness challenge the conviction? (Some) Confirmation bias in legal experts

Oeberst

Goeckenjan

2022

Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal investigations and trials are always guided by assumptions such that a suspect or defendant has committed a certain crime. Research on confirmation bias suggests that such prior assumptions bias subsequent information processing, fostering a confirmation of those assumptions. Biased information processing, in turn, would pose a severe threat to legal decision-making. Since previous evidence regarding professional decision makers is sparse and inconsistent, the present paper investigated whether legal experts showed evidence of confirmation bias. Specifically, we provided case materials pointing to a certain suspect and investigated evaluations of subsequent eyewitness evidence as a function of whether it was consistent or inconsistent with the initial suspicion. Although identical, witnessing conditions were rated as significantly poorer for inconsistent (vs. consistent) statements, thus, indicating confirmation bias. The effects were rather small, but this finding did not hinge on professional training, as another study with (law) students suggested. We argue that even small effects may threaten fair judgments and that our findings likely underestimate real-world effects.

show abstract