Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bias in der forensisch-psychologischen Begutachtung

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Psychologische Begutachtung

  • 31 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Biases (Urteilsverzerrungen) sind ein inhärentes Phänomen der menschlichen Informationsverarbeitung und treten folglich auch im Rahmen forensisch-psychologischer Begutachtungen bei Sachverständigen auf. Angesichts der weitreichenden Konsequenzen, die forensisch-psychologische Begutachtungen für Individuen und die Gesellschaft haben, sollten Beurteilungsprozesse in diesem Rahmen so weit wie möglich von Biases befreit werden. In diesem Kapitel wird ein prozessorientiertes Bias-Verständnis eingeführt, das es ermöglicht, theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Erkenntnisse zu verschiedenen Bias-Formen zusammenzuführen. Hierauf aufbauend wird ein Überblick über die empirischen Forschungsbefunde zu Biases in forensisch-psychologischen Begutachtungen gegeben und die Frage diskutiert, wie Biases durch den Einsatz effektiver Debiasing-Strategien reduziert werden kann.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014). Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: Criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahle, K.-P. (2010). Psychologische Kriminalprognose. Centaurus.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dhami, M. K., Belton, I. K., & Mandel, D. R. (2019). The “analysis of competing hypotheses” in intelligence analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1080–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2021). Linear sequential unmasking-expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, Article 100161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror, I. E., Morgan, R. M., Rando, C., & Nakhaeizadeh, S. (2017). The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: Two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(3), 832–833.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fishhoff, B. (1982). For those condemned to study the past: Heuristics and biases in hindsight. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (S. 335–351). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R. L. (2019). Forensic confirmation bias: Is consider-the-opposite an effective debiasing strategy? Washburn University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Second edition. Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, E. M. (2007). Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25(1), 48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 64–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmus, L. M. (2021). Estimating the probability of sexual recidivism among men charged or convicted of sexual offences: Evidence-based guidance for applied evaluators. Sexual Offending: Theory, Research, and Prevention, 16, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, R. J. (2005). How does analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH) improve intelligence analysis? http://www.pherson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/06.-How-Does-ACH-Improve-Analysis_FINAL.pdf. Zugegriffen am 19.04.2024.

  • Krane, D. E., Ford, S., Gilder, J. R., Inman, K., Jamieson, A., Koppl, R., et al. (2008). Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 1006–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00787.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kröber, H. L., Brettel, H., Rettenberger, M., & Stübner, S. (2019). Empfehlungen für Prognosegutachten: Erfahrungswissenschaftliche Empfehlungen für kriminalprognostische Gutachten. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 13(4), 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 677–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manoogian, J., & Benson, B. (2017). Cognitive bias codex. https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18.

  • Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022a). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M., Martire, K. A., Johan, J. L., Mathers, E. M., & Otto, R. K. (2022b). The law meets psychological expertise: Eight best practices to improve forensic psychological assessment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18, 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberlader, V., & Verschuere, B. (2023). Bias is persistent-Sequencing case information does not protect against contextual bias in criminal risk assessment. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4hzcv

  • Oeberst, A., & Imhoff, R. (2023). Toward parsimony in bias research: A proposed common framework of belief-consistent information processing for a set of biases. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1464–1487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, C. T., & Kesselheim, A. S. (Hrsg.). (2016). Blinding as a solution to bias: Strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020). Allegiance bias in statement reliability evaluations is not eliminated by falsification instructions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(3), 210–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2015). The duality of everyday life: Dual-process and dual system models in social psychology. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Hrsg.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (S. 891–927). American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C. (2018). Developing effective methods for addressing contextual bias in forensic science. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/developing-effective-methods-addressing-contextual-bias-forensic-science.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B., Lin, C. C., Huismann, S., Kleinberg, B., Willemse, M., Mei, E. C. J., et al. (2023). The use-the-best heuristic facilitates deception detection. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 718–728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volbert, R. (2010). Aussagepsychologische Begutachtung. Kompendien Psychologische Diagnostik, 12, 18–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? European Psychologist, 9(3), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vredeveldt, A., van Rosmalen, E. A., Van Koppen, P. J., Dror, I. E., & Otgaar, H. (2022). Legal psychologists as experts: Guidelines for minimizing bias. Psychology, Crime & Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2114476

  • Weiss, D. J., & Shanteau, J. (2003). Empirical assessment of expertise. Human Factors, 45, 104–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westhoff, K., & Kluck, M. L. (2008). Psychologische Gutachten schreiben und beurteilen. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappala, M., Reed, A. L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K. (2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 18(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sozial- und Rechtspsychologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland

    Verena Oberlader & Alexander F. Schmidt

Authors
  1. Verena Oberlader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander F. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verena Oberlader .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Insitut für Psychologie, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    Ralf Dohrenbusch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Der/die Herausgeber bzw. der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Oberlader, V., Schmidt, A.F. (2024). Bias in der forensisch-psychologischen Begutachtung. In: Dohrenbusch, R. (eds) Psychologische Begutachtung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64801-8_61-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64801-8_61-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-64801-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-64801-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Psychologie

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation