Legal and Criminological Psychology最新文献

Although judges may be well intended when taking an oath to be impartial when they reach the bench, psychological and legal literature suggests that their legal approaches, behaviour, and decision-making processes are subconsciously impacted by biases stemming from and influenced by their attitudes, ideology, backgrounds, and previous experiences. Drawing from prior models of sources of bias in legal contexts and existing literature on judges, this paper discusses and models potential sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges with prosecutorial backgrounds. These include (1) professional and self-selection into the judiciary; (2) prosecutorial socialization and attitudes that can shape a prosecutorial mindset; and (3) the effects of common unconscious biases, confirmation bias and role induced bias, that may shape judicial behaviour through formed beliefs and approaches stemming from the prosecutorial mindset and selection into the judiciary. As the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors in the U.S. as well as in many other countries, this paper considers possible ways to deal with pro-prosecution bias and the potential importance of diversifying judges' professional backgrounds.

Does cognitive inflexibility predict vulnerability to violent extremism? Schumann, Salman, Clemmow, and Gill (2021) conducted a registered direct replication of Zmigrod, Rentfrow, and Robbins’ (2019, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 989) studies on the relationship between neuropsychologically assessed cognitive inflexibility and extremist attitudes. Replicating the original study, Schumann et al. (2021) demonstrated that cognitive inflexibility on the Remote Associates Test was related to individuals' willingness to fight and die for their ideological group (Bayes Factor = 58.7). In a further corroboration, the study found that individuals who indicated they would self-sacrifice in a trolley-dilemma paradigm were more psychologically rigid on the Remote Associates Test than those who opted for self-preservation (Bayes Factor = 402.3). A mini meta-analysis with the original study revealed a significant negative correlation between cognitive flexibility and violent extremist behaviour intentions, thereby supporting the conclusions of the original study by Zmigrod and colleagues (2019). Nevertheless, the replication study highlighted moderators of the effect sizes of the reported relationships and revealed subtleties in the theoretical relationships between cognitive style and tendencies towards extremist attitudes. Follow-up analyses with Bayesian statistics demonstrated that—corroborating the original study—cognitive inflexibility on both the Remote Associates Test (Bayes Factor = 7.2) and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Bayes Factor = 2.3) are linked to individuals' willingness to fight for an ideological cause. However, the replication study revealed that these effects are specific to individuals who endorse ideological self-sacrifice. Furthermore, deviating from the original study, Schumann and colleagues found that cognitive flexibility on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test may in fact positively predict willingness to die for a group under some conditions. This suggests that flexibility may be a double-edged sword when it comes to ideological conversion. These insights indicate that a fine-grained examination of risk sub-profiles and interactions among predictors is essential. The findings of the replication also stimulate a discussion of what constitutes a phenomenologically or practically meaningful effect size for psychological and criminological research and practice—and the implications for cognitive methodologies in risk assessment.

The excellent target article raises much food for thought. In this commentary we first discuss what is included in their proposed category of ‘positive evaluations and responses to police assertions of power to attempt social influence’. We then consider some of the implications of the concentric diagram for our understanding of police authority and power.

Hamm et al.’s (Legal Criminol. Psychol., 27, 2022) concentric diagram of legitimacy has a lot to offer by providing order and structure to a disjointed and sometimes confusing literature. However, enthusiasm for the concentric diagram wanes when considering its potential as a catalyst for the development of an integrated theory of legitimacy. The current renaissance of legitimacy studies owes much to the efforts of scholars in pushing the envelope of this elusive concept by drawing from a broad set of perspectives – both within and outside legitimacy studies – to address an array of research questions. Scholars should engage and leverage this diversity, not curtail it.