Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Objectivity Demand: Experiences and Behaviors of Psychologists in Capital Case Evaluations

博士论文研究：客观性要求：心理学家在资本案例评估中的经验和行为

• 批准号: 1022849
• 负责人: Stanley Brodsky
• 金额: $ 1.5万
• 依托单位: University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2010
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2010-09-01 至 2011-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1022849&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Objectivity; Demand

This research will examine how biases among forensic psychologists may influence the outcome of death-penalty cases. Capital punishment is an emotional issue about which many people have strongly held opinions. Although mental health professionals who work in the legal system are bound by ethical standards to practice objectively and set aside personal beliefs and opinions, evaluators who hold strong attitudes toward capital punishment may not objectively process evidence of a defendant's psychological distress in capital cases. If implicit and unrecognized bias is operating, mentally ill defendants may not always receive the appropriate treatments or legal sanctions. Whether objectivity is maintained is an empirical question with life-or-death implications. This will be a three-part study, with an interview portion first questioning experienced forensic examiners about their experiences and their efforts to correct for perceived biases. A large national survey of forensic psychologists will follow to build on and test the bias hypotheses that emerge from study one. The third study is the first of its kind, and proposes to analyze the content of completed capital case reports for potential objectivity or bias. This series of studies represents an investigation into an unexamined area of forensic psychology. Social psychological literature suggests that human beings may have an impossible task in divorcing decisions from cognitive and emotional biases. The potential for bias is thought to be strongest in ambiguous and emotionally salient situations. It is therefore important to examine whether in emotionally intense capital case evaluations (i.e., when examiners feel strongly in either direction about capital punishment), examiner attitudes may influence interpretations and conclusions.

本研究将探讨法医心理学家的偏见如何影响死刑案件的结果。死刑是一个情绪化的问题，许多人对此持有强烈的意见。尽管在法律的系统中工作的精神健康专业人员受到道德标准的约束，客观地实践并抛开个人信仰和意见，但对死刑持强烈态度的评估者可能不会客观地处理死刑案件中被告心理困扰的证据。如果存在隐性和未被承认的偏见，精神病被告可能并不总是得到适当的治疗或法律的制裁。客观性是否得到保持是一个具有生或死含义的经验问题。 这将是一个由三部分组成的研究，采访部分首先询问经验丰富的法医检查员关于他们的经验和他们纠正感知偏见的努力。随后将对法医心理学家进行一次大规模的全国性调查，以建立和检验研究一中出现的偏见假设。第三项研究是同类研究中的第一项，建议分析已完成的死刑案件报告的内容，以确定其是否客观或存在偏见。这一系列的研究代表了对法医心理学一个未经审查的领域的调查。 社会心理学文献表明，人类可能有一个不可能的任务，从认知和情感偏见离婚的决定。人们认为，在模棱两可和情绪突出的情况下，偏见的可能性最大。因此，重要的是要检查是否在情绪激烈的死刑案件评估（即，当审查员对死刑有强烈的看法时，审查员的态度可能会影响解释和结论。