Cognitive biases in forensic psychiatry: A scoping review

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q1 LAW

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102083

L. Buongiorno , F. Mele , G. Petroni , A. Margari , F. Carabellese , R. Catanesi , G. Mandarelli

{"title":"Cognitive biases in forensic psychiatry: A scoping review","authors":"L. Buongiorno , F. Mele , G. Petroni , A. Margari , F. Carabellese , R. Catanesi , G. Mandarelli","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Forensic psychiatry plays a critical role in legal contexts but is highly susceptible to cognitive biases that can undermine the accuracy and objectivity of evaluations. This scoping review, guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, aims to identify and analyze cognitive biases within forensic psychiatric practice across criminal, civil, and testimonial domains.</div><div>A comprehensive search across five databases yielded 7002 records, with 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. From these studies, ten distinct cognitive biases were identified, with the most frequently discussed being gender bias (29.2 %), allegiance bias (20.8 %), and confirmation bias (20.8 %), followed by hindsight, cultural, and emotional biases. Most studies focused on criminal settings, with only two addressing civil contexts.</div><div>Among the mitigation strategies reviewed, structured methodologies and the “considering the opposite” technique were the most positively evaluated and widely discussed approaches. Conversely, the self-awareness strategy was criticized for its limited effectiveness in reducing bias. Emerging tools, such as artificial intelligence, offer potential solutions but require robust ethical safeguards to prevent the perpetuation of systemic biases.</div><div>This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on biases in forensic psychiatry, underscoring the need for further empirical studies to explore their prevalence, mechanisms, and effective mitigation strategies in greater depth.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":"101 ","pages":"Article 102083"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252725000160","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Forensic psychiatry plays a critical role in legal contexts but is highly susceptible to cognitive biases that can undermine the accuracy and objectivity of evaluations. This scoping review, guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, aims to identify and analyze cognitive biases within forensic psychiatric practice across criminal, civil, and testimonial domains.

A comprehensive search across five databases yielded 7002 records, with 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. From these studies, ten distinct cognitive biases were identified, with the most frequently discussed being gender bias (29.2 %), allegiance bias (20.8 %), and confirmation bias (20.8 %), followed by hindsight, cultural, and emotional biases. Most studies focused on criminal settings, with only two addressing civil contexts.

Among the mitigation strategies reviewed, structured methodologies and the “considering the opposite” technique were the most positively evaluated and widely discussed approaches. Conversely, the self-awareness strategy was criticized for its limited effectiveness in reducing bias. Emerging tools, such as artificial intelligence, offer potential solutions but require robust ethical safeguards to prevent the perpetuation of systemic biases.

This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on biases in forensic psychiatry, underscoring the need for further empirical studies to explore their prevalence, mechanisms, and effective mitigation strategies in greater depth.

查看原文本刊更多论文

司法精神病学中的认知偏差：范围综述

法医精神病学在法律环境中发挥着关键作用，但极易受到认知偏见的影响，从而破坏评估的准确性和客观性。在Arksey和O'Malley框架的指导下，这一范围审查旨在识别和分析刑事、民事和证词领域法医精神病学实践中的认知偏见。在5个数据库中进行全面搜索，得到7002条记录，其中24项研究符合纳入标准。从这些研究中，确定了十种不同的认知偏见，其中最常被讨论的是性别偏见（29.2%）、忠诚偏见（20.8%）和确认偏见（20.8%），其次是后见之明、文化和情感偏见。大多数研究集中在刑事背景下，只有两项研究涉及民事背景。在审查的缓解战略中，结构化方法和“相反考虑”技术得到了最积极的评价和广泛讨论。相反，自我意识策略因其在减少偏见方面的有效性有限而受到批评。人工智能等新兴工具提供了潜在的解决方案，但需要强有力的道德保障，以防止系统性偏见的延续。本综述全面概述了法医精神病学中偏见的研究现状，强调需要进一步的实证研究，以更深入地探讨其流行、机制和有效的缓解策略。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Multiple-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

8.70%

发文量

审稿时长

41 days

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.