Headlines publicize controversies about sexual assault among college students, and universities face pressure to revise their sexual consent policies. What can the social science literature contribute to this discussion? In this article, we briefly discuss reasons for the recent upsurge in attention to these issues, the prevalence of sexual assault among college students, and aspects of college life that increase the risk of sexual assault and complicate sexual consent. We then review the conceptual challenges of defining sexual consent and the empirical research on how young people navigate sexual consent in their daily lives, focusing primarily on studies of U.S. and Canadian students. Integrating these conceptual issues and research findings, we discuss implications for consent policies, and we present five principles that could be useful for thinking about consent. Finally, we discuss some of the limitations of the existing research and suggest directions for future research.

The Complexities of Sexual Consent Among College Students: A Conceptual and Empirical Review

How objective are forensic experts when they are retained by one of the opposing sides in an adversarial legal proceeding? Despite long-standing concerns from within the legal system, little is known about whether experts can provide opinions unbiased by the side that retained them. In this experiment, we paid 108 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to review the same offender case files, but deceived some to believe that they were consulting for the defense and some to believe that they were consulting for the prosecution. Participants scored each offender on two commonly used, well-researched risk-assessment instruments. Those who believed they were working for the prosecution tended to assign higher risk scores to offenders, whereas those who believed they were working for the defense tended to assign lower risk scores to the same offenders; the effect sizes (d) ranged up to 0.85. The results provide strong evidence of an allegiance effect among some forensic experts in adversarial legal proceedings.

Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them

Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.

Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias

Handbook of Diagnostic and Structured Interviewing

We integrate multiple domains of psychological science to identify, better understand, and manage the effects of subtle but powerful biases in forensic mental health assessment. This topic is ripe for discussion, as research evidence that challenges our objectivity and credibility garners increased attention both within and outside of psychology. We begin by defining bias and provide rich examples from the judgment and decision-making literature as they might apply to forensic assessment tasks. The cognitive biases we review can help us explain common problems in interpretation and judgment that confront forensic examiners. This leads us to ask (and attempt to answer) how we might use what we know about bias in forensic clinicians’ judgment to reduce its negative effects.

/pdf/the-cognitive-underpinnings-of-bias-in-forensic-mental-1vhege9vml.pdf

The Cognitive Underpinnings of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Older opposite-sex romantic partners, sexual risk, and victimization in adolescence.

We know surprisingly little about the interrater reliability of forensic psychological opinions, even though courts and other authorities have long called for known error rates for scientific procedures admitted as courtroom testimony. This is particularly true for opinions produced during routine practice in the field, even for some of the most common types of forensic evaluations-evaluations of adjudicative competency and legal sanity. To address this gap, we used meta-analytic procedures and study space methodology to systematically review studies that examined the interrater reliability-particularly the field reliability-of competency and sanity opinions. Of 59 identified studies, 9 addressed the field reliability of competency opinions and 8 addressed the field reliability of sanity opinions. These studies presented a wide range of reliability estimates; pairwise percentage agreements ranged from 57% to 100% and kappas ranged from .28 to 1.0. Meta-analytic combinations of reliability estimates obtained by independent evaluators returned estimates of κ = .49 (95% CI: .40-.58) for competency opinions and κ = .41 (95% CI: .29-.53) for sanity opinions. This wide range of reliability estimates underscores the extent to which different evaluation contexts tend to produce different reliability rates. Unfortunately, our study space analysis illustrates that available field reliability studies typically provide little information about contextual variables crucial to understanding their findings. Given these concerns, we offer suggestions for improving research on the field reliability of competency and sanity opinions, as well as suggestions for improving reliability rates themselves. (PsycINFO Database Record

Lucy A. Guarnera

Papers

Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them

Older opposite-sex romantic partners, sexual risk, and victimization in adolescence.

Field reliability of competency and sanity opinions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations.

Adolescent development, mental disorder, and decision making in delinquent youths.