Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"title":"Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth.","authors":"Michele Peterson-Badali","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000578","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is an increasing recognition of the necessity to establish the predictive validity of risk assessment scores within specific population subgroups, particularly those (including Indigenous peoples) who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I compared measures of discrimination and calibration of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth probationers in Ontario, Canada.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Compared with non-Indigenous youth, Indigenous youth would have higher risk scores and reoffense rates. The YLS/CMI would predict reoffending and time to reoffense significantly and comparably for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, but there would be group difference discrimination (sensitivity, specificity) and calibration (positive predictive value, negative predictive value).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Justice ministry-supplied data on 400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth (330 male, 70 female) individually matched on key background variables were analyzed to provide measures of discrimination and calibration of the YLS/CMI, with 3-year recidivism as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Indigenous youth were assessed at significantly higher risk than non-Indigenous youth (<i>d</i> = .60); 70% of Indigenous youth and 46% of non-Indigenous youth reoffended (ϕ = .24). Overall measures of discrimination (area under the curve) and calibration (logistic regression) were significant and did not differ across groups. Cross-area under the curve results indicated that the YLS/CMI discriminated Indigenous recidivists from non-Indigenous nonrecidivists but differentiated Indigenous nonrecidivists from non-Indigenous recidivists at chance level. In addition, recidivism was underestimated for low-risk Indigenous youth compared with non-Indigenous youth, but specificity was also low; only 28% of Indigenous youth who did not reoffend were assessed as low risk. Results were largely consistent across male and female youth.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Examining subgroup predictive validity using multiple indices provides important information that should inform policy and practice discussions regarding fair use of risk assessment tools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142607024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.","authors":"Mary Catlin,Talley Bettens,Allison D Redlich,Kyle C Scherr","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000588","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESome exonerees receive compensation and aid after being exonerated of their wrongful convictions, and some do not. Looking beyond differences in state statutes, we examined possible reasons for biases in receiving compensation (via statutes or civil claims) and other reintegration services. More specifically, we examined how two unique types of false admission of guilt (i.e., false confessions and false guilty pleas) could be associated with biased outcomes in compensation procurement and reintegration outcomes.HYPOTHESESAlthough we did not have formal hypotheses for this qualitative study, based on the cumulative disadvantage framework (Scherr, Redlich, & Kassin, 2020), we anticipated that both types of false admission of guilt would negatively bias exonerees' experience post-exoneration. More specifically, we expected that exonerees whose cases involved at least one type of false admission of guilt would have a more difficult time obtaining compensation and would experience more negative post-exoneration outcomes, compared with exonerees in general.METHODWe conducted in-depth interviews with three samples: (a) exonerees (n = 19), (b) attorneys who had assisted exonerees with post-exoneration compensation claims (n = 15), and (c) innocence advocates who had worked with exonerees (n = 9).RESULTSAcross all samples, interviewees indicated that both forms of false admission of guilt are associated with biases that may influence exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts. Specifically, interviews revealed that (a) false admissions are associated with disadvantages to exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts, as predicted by the cumulative disadvantage framework; (b) under specific circumstances, false admissions are associated with advantages benefiting compensation attempts; and (c) false admissions can be nonapplicable (i.e., irrelevant) to reintegration efforts.CONCLUSIONSTogether, our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the role false confessions and false guilty pleas may play post-exoneration. This understanding, derived from those individuals directly involved in the compensation and reintegration processes, is an important step in beginning to right the injustices experienced by those wrongfully convicted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.","authors":"Jonathan R Cohn,Rachael T Perrault,David C Cicero,Gina M Vincent","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000586","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEIdentification 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.HYPOTHESESWe expected the SAVRY to be invariant (lacking measurement bias) between Black and White youths.METHODThe 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.RESULTSThe SAVRY demonstrated scalar invariance (equal thresholds for ratings from \"low\" to \"moderate\" and \"moderate\" to \"high\") for all items except one-community disorganization.CONCLUSIONSThe 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) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Essentialism and the criminal legal system.","authors":"Madeleine Millar, Colleen M Berryessa, Cynthia Willis-Esqueda, Jason A Cantone, Deborah Goldfarb, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Anthony D Perillo, Terrill O Taylor, Laurie T Becker","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000576","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000576","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"597-612"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.","authors":"Jonathan R Cohn, Rachael T Perrault, David C Cicero, Gina M Vincent","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000586","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000586","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected the SAVRY to be invariant (lacking measurement bias) between Black and White youths.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SAVRY demonstrated scalar invariance (equal thresholds for ratings from \"low\" to \"moderate\" and \"moderate\" to \"high\") for all items except one-community disorganization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"415-426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142477953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do risk measure scores and diagnoses predict evaluator opinions in sexually violent predator cases? It depends on the evaluator.","authors":"Marcus T Boccaccini, Daniel C Murrie, Paige B Harris","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000561","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000561","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (<i>p</i> < .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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"531-544"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implicit bias training for police: Evaluating impacts on enforcement disparities.","authors":"Robert E Worden, Cynthia J Najdowski, Sarah J McLean, Kenan M Worden, Nicholas Corsaro, Hannah Cochran, Robin S Engel","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000568","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000568","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to estimate the behavioral impacts of training police officers in implicit bias awareness and management.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Training police in implicit bias reduces racial and ethnic disparities in stops, arrests, summonses, frisks, searches, and/or use of force.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the estimated training effects achieved statistical significance at the .05 level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"338-355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams.","authors":"Hannah J Phalen, Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Emily N Line, Sara N Thomas, Rose E Eerdmans, Taylor C Bettis, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000585","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000585","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We coded attorney gender and case outcomes in real civil trials (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"580-596"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142548359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence.","authors":"Megan L Lawrence, Emma R Saiter, Rose E Eerdmans, Laura Smalarz","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000587","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000587","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Despite the risks inherent to custodial police interrogation, criminal suspects may waive their <i>Miranda</i> 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 <i>Miranda</i> penalty exists.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that people would perceive suspects who invoke their <i>Miranda</i> rights or sit in silence during an interrogation as more likely to be guilty than those who waive their <i>Miranda</i> rights.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In two experiments, undergraduate psychology students (Experiment 1; <i>N</i> = 256) and students enrolled in law-enforcement-related degree programs (Experiment 2; <i>N</i> = 119) were instructed to play the role of a police officer investigating a series of crimes in which the suspect invoked his <i>Miranda</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The protective power of <i>Miranda</i> is eroded by the tendency for people to infer guilt from a suspect's decision to invoke <i>Miranda</i> or remain silent during police interrogation. This <i>Miranda</i> 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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"368-384"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142688908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are forensic evaluators more likely to conclude that Black or White defendants are malingering?","authors":"Lucy A Guarnera, Daniel C Murrie, Brett O Gardner, Scott D Bender","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000589","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 5-6","pages":"545-563"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143568563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}