The Bias Blind Spot Across Childhood

This chapter focuses on two biases that lead people away from evaluating evidence and scientific studies impartially—confirmation bias and bias blind spot. The chapter first discusses different ways in which people process information and reviews the costs and benefits of utilizing cognitive shortcuts in decision making. Next, two common cognitive biases, confirmation bias and bias blind spot, are explained. Then the literature on “debiasing” is explored. Finally, the implications of confirmation bias and bias blind spot in the context of communicating about science are examined, and an agenda for future research on understanding and mitigating these biases is offered.

Download Full-text

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations

Sexual Abuse ◽

10.1177/1079063215612443 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 29 (6) ◽

pp. 592-614 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽

Caroline S. Chevalier ◽

Daniel C. Murrie ◽

Jorge G. Varela

Keyword(s):

Risk Measure ◽

Blind Spot ◽

Routine Practice ◽

Sexually Violent Predator ◽

Psychopathy Checklist ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Score Interpretation ◽

Bias Blind Spot ◽

Sexually Violent ◽

Psychopathy Checklist Revised

We surveyed evaluators who conduct sexually violent predator evaluations ( N = 95) regarding the frequency with which they use the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R), their rationale for use, and scoring practices. Findings suggest that evaluators use the PCL-R in sexually violent predator cases because of its perceived versatility, providing information about both mental disorder and risk. Several findings suggested gaps between research and routine practice. For example, relatively few evaluators reported providing the factor and facet scores that may be the strongest predictors of future offending, and many assessed the combination of PCL-R scores and sexual deviance using deviance measures (e.g., paraphilia diagnoses) that have not been examined in available studies. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance in PCL-R score interpretation, as well as a “bias blind spot” in PCL-R and other risk measure (Static-99R) scoring; evaluators tended to acknowledge the possibility of bias in other evaluators but not in themselves. Findings suggest the need for evaluators to carefully consider the extent to which their practices are consistent with emerging research and to be attuned to the possibility that working in adversarial settings may influence their scoring and interpretation practices.

Download Full-text

Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views About Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

10.31234/osf.io/te5c2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jennifer Kamorowski ◽

Corine de Ruiter ◽

Maartje Schreuder ◽

Karl Ask ◽

Marko Jelicic

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Blind Spot ◽

Mental Health Practitioners ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Forensic Mental Health ◽

Effective Strategies ◽

Health Practitioners ◽

Bias Blind Spot ◽

And Training

The use of structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) has increased significantly over the past decades, with research documenting variation between countries. The use of SRAIs, their perceived utility and potential for mitigating bias in forensic risk evaluations (FREs) was investigated in a survey of Dutch forensic mental health practitioners (N = 110) We found generally positive views regarding SRAI utility. Bias in FREs was of concern to respondents. We found no evidence of a bias blind spot (the belief that oneself is less prone to bias than peers/colleagues). SRAIs were rated as the most effective debiasing strategy, but respondents also endorsed introspection. There were few differences in beliefs about sources of bias or debiasing strategies between respondents who had bias training and those who had not, suggesting the need for development of effective strategies to mitigate bias and training related to bias in FREs.

Download Full-text

Serious Efforts at Bias Reduction

Journal of Media Psychology Theories Methods and Applications ◽

10.1027/1864-1105/a000174 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 30 (1) ◽

pp. 16-28 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Adrienne Shaw ◽

Kate Kenski ◽

Jennifer Stromer-Galley ◽

Rosa Mikeal Martey ◽

Benjamin A. Clegg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Learning Outcomes ◽

Cognitive Processes ◽

Serious Games ◽

Cognitive Biases ◽

Digital Games ◽

Blind Spot ◽

Bias Reduction ◽

Effective Learning ◽

Training Video ◽

Bias Blind Spot

Abstract. As research on serious games continues to grow, we investigate the efficacy of digital games to train enhanced decision making through understanding cognitive biases. This study investigates the ability of a 30-minute digital game as compared with a 30-minute video to teach people how to recognize and mitigate three cognitive biases: fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias, and bias blind spot. We investigate the effects of character customization on learning outcomes as compared with an assigned character. We use interviews to understand the qualitative differences between the conditions. Experimental results suggest that the game was more effective at teaching and mitigating cognitive biases than was the training video. Although interviews suggest players liked avatar customization, results of the experiment indicate that avatar customization had no significant effect on learning outcomes. This research provides information future designers can use to choose the best medium and affordances for the most effective learning outcomes on cognitive processes.

Download Full-text