Law and Human Behavior最新文献

Objective: Existing literature has yet to conceptualize and consolidate research on psychological essentialism and its relation to the criminal legal system, particularly in terms of explaining how individuals with justice involvement have been and could be differentially impacted across contexts. This article explores essentialism in the criminal legal system, including its potential consequences for inequity.

Method: We review research on essentialism as a psychological construct, its common applications to different social categorizations, and its trickle-down effects within the criminal legal system.

Results: Empirical work suggests that biases stemming from essentialism have the potential to severely affect individuals within the criminal legal system. Beyond assigning immutable properties across social groups, essentialism can give rise to biased attributions of responsibility and blame and affect decisions and behavior within three core domains of the criminal legal system: jury decision making, sentencing decisions, and public support for punitive policies.

Conclusions: We propose future policy recommendations to mitigate the adverse effects of essentialism in the criminal legal system, focusing especially on how using and adopting person-first language (focusing on people before characteristics) across society and policy can help to combat bias across criminal legal domains. Future research is needed on how to best address the adverse effects of essentialism and its biasing effects in the criminal legal system, as well as to examine the effects of essentialism in different legal contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Identification and implementation of effective methods for reducing racial/ethnic bias and disparities in legal settings are paramount in the United States and other countries. One procedure originally thought to reduce bias in legal decisions is the use of risk assessment instruments, which is now being heavily scrutinized. Measurement invariance, a latent trait technique, is a robust method for assessing one form of bias. Measurement invariance involves determining whether risk items in an instrument appear to be functioning the same between racial or other groups. Thus, the present study examined measurement invariance of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) between non-Latino Black and White youths to examine racial bias.

Hypotheses: We expected the SAVRY to be invariant (lacking measurement bias) between Black and White youths.

Method: The sample included 687 Black and 361 White youths, and the study used a large, multistate data set of SAVRYs conducted by probation officers. We conducted measurement invariance testing in a series of hierarchical steps including testing configural and scalar invariance.

Results: The SAVRY demonstrated scalar invariance (equal thresholds for ratings from "low" to "moderate" and "moderate" to "high") for all items except one-community disorganization.

Conclusions: The findings lend further credibility to the SAVRY, and the structured professional judgment approach, as a method to assess violence risk and case planning needs among youths involved in the legal system. These findings provide more confidence that significant differences in SAVRY risk level or items between Black and White youths are not based in measurement bias, with the exception of the community disorganization item. Potential fixes discussed include eliminating or deemphasizing this item in final risk level ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.

Hypotheses: Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.

Method: The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.

Results: Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (p < .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.

Conclusions: Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the behavioral impacts of training police officers in implicit bias awareness and management.

Hypotheses: Training police in implicit bias reduces racial and ethnic disparities in stops, arrests, summonses, frisks, searches, and/or use of force.

Method: A cluster randomized controlled trial using the stepped wedge design was applied to 14,471 officers in the New York City Police Department, with a 1-day training delivered to clusters of police commands between May 2018 and April 2019 and outcomes measured with police records of individual events from April 2018 to May 2019. Police records were supplemented with survey data on 1,973 officers matched to administrative data. For each type of enforcement action, the likelihood that the action involved or was taken against Black or Hispanic suspects, respectively, relative to White suspects was estimated, controlling for potential confounders. Additional analysis allowed for estimating training effects of different magnitudes for Black, Hispanic, and White officers and for officers with greater motivation to act without prejudice or greater concern about discrimination.

Results: None of the estimated training effects achieved statistical significance at the .05 level.

Conclusions: Isolated and weak evidence of behavioral impacts of the training was detected. Several explanations for the null findings are considered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: There are documented gender disparities in the legal field. We examined whether gender representation on civil trial teams varied on the basis of (a) the degree of regional gender bias "in the air" and (b) time.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that women were underrepresented both on trial teams and in leadership roles within those teams. We predicted that these gender disparities were exacerbated in regions with stronger regional gender bias and that these gender disparities attenuated over time.

Method: We coded attorney gender and case outcomes in real civil trials (N = 655). We created regional implicit and explicit gender bias scores based on the year and region of the case using Project Implicit data. Finally, we used order-constrained inference and Bayesian modeling to identify the best-performing models.

Results: Overall, women represented only 17% of attorneys at trial and 13% in leadership roles-indicating vast gender disparities. Gender disparities on teams and in leadership roles were more extreme in regions with high (vs. low) regional gender bias (teams: Bayes factor [BF] = 9,182; leadership: BF = 91,667) and improved over time (teams: BF = 6,420; leadership: BF = 3,495). Gender alone best predicted the likelihood of serving in a leadership role (BF = 1,197,397).

Conclusions: Female attorneys were grossly underrepresented on civil trial teams. Gender representation on teams, but not leadership roles, has improved slightly over time. Culture may also contribute; women were less represented on trial teams in regions with greater gender bias in the air-particularly in leadership roles. Despite these slight improvements in representation on trial teams over time and in low-bias regions, gender disparities in leadership roles persist over time and levels of regional bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Despite the risks inherent to custodial police interrogation, criminal suspects may waive their Miranda rights and submit to police questioning in fear that exercising their rights or remaining silent will make them appear guilty. We tested whether such a Miranda penalty exists.

Hypotheses: We predicted that people would perceive suspects who invoke their Miranda rights or sit in silence during an interrogation as more likely to be guilty than those who waive their Miranda rights.

Method: In two experiments, undergraduate psychology students (Experiment 1; N = 256) and students enrolled in law-enforcement-related degree programs (Experiment 2; N = 119) were instructed to play the role of a police officer investigating a series of crimes in which the suspect invoked his Miranda rights, sat in silence, or spoke to police. Participants evaluated each suspect along various characteristics (e.g., honest, suspicious), assessed his likely guilt, and reported how many hours they would allocate to investigating the suspect versus other potential suspects.

Results: Suspects who invoked their right to silence or remained silent, compared with those who waived their rights and spoke to police, were perceived more negatively and judged as guiltier. Participants also allocated more hours toward investigating such suspects.

Conclusions: The protective power of Miranda is eroded by the tendency for people to infer guilt from a suspect's decision to invoke Miranda or remain silent during police interrogation. This Miranda penalty violates suspects' legal protection from being penalized for exercising their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and may bias the investigation and prosecution of criminal suspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Malingering is a particularly stigmatizing forensic opinion that may be prone to racial bias, although scant research has investigated the possibility. We examined whether forensic evaluators are more likely to opine that Black defendants or White defendants are overstating mental health symptoms.

Hypotheses: Study 1 (a field study) was exploratory. Following Study 1 findings, in Study 2 (an experiment), we hypothesized that participants would opine malingering more frequently for a Black defendant compared with a White defendant.

Method: In Study 1, we reviewed a large statewide sample of trial competence reports, of which 558 identified the defendant's race as Black or White. We coded feigning/malingering opinion and defendant race to assess associations. In Study 2, we randomly assigned forensic clinicians (N = 136; 78.7% identified as White only; 93.3% held a clinical doctoral degree; M = 10.7 years since earning highest degree) to read a mock competence report identifying the defendant's race as Black or White. Participants then provided opinions about malingering, competence, and other clinical judgments.

Results: Study 1 demonstrated that one prolific real-world evaluator identified Black defendants as feigning/malingering five times more often than White defendants, although there was no racial disproportionality in the overall sample after accounting for this one evaluator's influence. In Study 2, defendant race was not significantly associated with malingering opinions or virtually any other clinical judgments. Hospital-based evaluators opined malingering more often than evaluators in private practice, and novice evaluators opined malingering more often than experienced evaluators.

Conclusions: Assessing racial bias among forensic clinicians is complex, particularly when the target is a stigmatizing but low-base-rate opinion such as malingering. Results underscore the impact of individual evaluator differences and suggest a need for evaluators themselves, and perhaps state agencies, to monitor forensic opinions to identify potential bias and remediate outlying practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Bias is a pervasive aspect of human thought and behavior that influences how we perceive, interpret, and respond to the world around us. Although built on assumptions of fairness and equality, the justice and legal systems are not exempt from individual and structural biases, which contribute to differential outcomes and disproportionately affect individuals who are marginalized based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, education, and other factors. The special issue showcases innovative science and clinical perspectives on bias in the justice and legal systems, including its underlying mechanisms, consequences, and potential interventions. We offer a framework centered on cumulative disadvantage to conceptualize how biases can accrue and compound across different stages of the justice and legal systems. The articles examine issues involving multiple actors (e.g., police, suspects, attorneys, defendants, psychologists, probation officers, jurors, judges) engaged in various processes (e.g., stops, frisks, searches, interrogation, risk assessment, evidence review, decision-making) at different stages in the justice and legal systems (e.g., initial contact, investigation, forensic evaluation, trial, post-conviction). Much like research in other domains, the special issue articles reveal that bias in the justice and legal systems is prevalent, pernicious, and difficult to attenuate. Rigorous, transparent science and evidence-based practices targeting bias at early stages in the justice and legal systems before disadvantage accumulates are sorely needed and should inform future intervention efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Myside bias-the tendency to evaluate and generate evidence as well as test hypotheses in a manner biased toward prior beliefs-causes disputants in litigation to harbor overconfident expectations of judicial awards and reduces odds of settlement. Two studies tested three interventions to suppress myside bias in civil litigation settings.

Hypotheses: I predicted that the participants in the baseline conditions would exhibit myside bias in award estimates and argument ratings and that the interventions would attenuate it.

Method: Two between-subjects experimental studies using students of law (n = 164, Mage = 24.21 years, 53% female; n = 181, Mage = 20.89 years, 61% female) compared the participants' award estimates and argument ratings in a simulated civil dispute. The interventions (a) manipulated the advocates to think they represented the opposing side during initial information processing (side-switch condition), (b) required the participants to generate and evaluate arguments for both sides (dialectical condition), and (c) affected the participants' motivations by threatening dismissal in case of estimation error (goal states condition).

Results: Baseline groups in both studies displayed significant myside bias in award estimates (all ds ≥ 1.12) and argument ratings (all ds ≥ 1.29). In Study 1, the side-switch intervention eliminated bias in argument ratings (d = 0.73 and 0.72) but only reduced (d = 0.35) rather than eliminated bias in award estimates. In Study 2, the dialectical intervention reduced bias in argument ratings (d = 0.74 and 0.58) but did not eliminate it; it also failed to reduce bias in award estimates. The goal states intervention suppressed myside bias in both argument ratings (d = 0.76 and 0.82) and award estimates (d = 0.78).

Conclusions: Myside bias in litigation settings is robust and difficult to suppress. Accountability interventions show potential as bias-attenuating strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: One concern about the use of risk assessment instruments in legal decisions is the potential for disparate impact by race or ethnicity. This means that one racial or ethnic group will experience harsher legal outcomes than another because of higher or biased risk estimates. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to synthesize research examining the real-world impact of juvenile and adult risk instruments on racial/ethnic disparities in legal decision making.

Hypotheses: Given the nature of research synthesis, we did not test formal hypotheses.

Method: Our systematic literature search as of July 2023 identified 21 articles that investigated the disparate impact of 13 risk assessment instruments on various legal outcomes. Most of these instruments were actuarial pretrial screening instruments.

Results: Our narrative synthesis indicated that there is not strong evidence of risk instruments contributing to greater system disparity. Ten articles indicated that adopting risk instruments did not create (or exacerbate preexisting) disparities, and eight articles found that instrument use reduced disparities in legal decision making. Three articles reported evidence of disparate impact of risk instruments; only one of these studies received a strong study quality assessment score. We observed a scarcity of high-quality articles that employed what we deem to be the gold standard approach for examining the disparate impact of risk instruments (i.e., pretest-posttest design).

Conclusions: The evidence signals that risk instruments can contribute to reductions in disparities across multiple stages of legal decision making. Yet study quality remains low, and most research has been conducted on decisions during the pretrial stage. More rigorous research on disparate impact across diverse legal decision points and approaches to risk assessment is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).