An Empirical Test of Cognitive Bias: Does Contextual Information Influence Assessments of Child Sexual Abuse Cases?
Date
2022
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
The University of Toledo
Abstract
Child sexual abuse investigations may be vulnerable to confirmation bias due to the
subjective nature of the evidence in cases. Jurors and practitioners often encounter
irrelevant contextual information describing alleged victims in child sexual abuse cases.
Exposure to irrelevant contextual information describing alleged victims may engender
confirmation bias and adversely affect decision making and evidence interpretation
among jurors and practitioners in child sexual abuse cases. Yet the research on
confirmation bias in the investigations of child sexual abuse cases remains nascent. We
examined how exposure to irrelevant contextual information describing alleged victims’
psychosocial history affects decision making and evidence interpretation among potential
jurors and child forensic interviewers in child sexual abuse cases. We hypothesized
participants would show a pro-prosecution, pro-victim bias in case decision making when
exposed to irrelevant contextual information (vs. no contextual information) describing
alleged victims’ psychosocial history. We hypothesized that the effects of contextual
information on decision making would vary as a function of participant gender, but only
when participants were exposed to irrelevant contextual information. Compared to men,
we expected women would render more pro-prosecution, pro-victim case decisions when
exposed to irrelevant contextual information. We also hypothesized that participants
would evaluate the quality of case evidence as higher and list more leading questions to
the victim when exposed to irrelevant contextual information (vs. no contextual
information). In three pre-registered studies, participants read a mock case summary
describing an alleged incident of child sexual abuse between an adult male and a 13-yearold female victim. Contextual information was manipulated in the case summary. In
Study 1, jury-eligible community members (N = 153) rendered various case decisions and
evaluated the quality of a child forensic interview transcript. In Study 2, jury-eligible
college students (N = 317) rendered various case decisions and listed questions to the
victim to obtain details of the alleged abusive events. In Study 3, child forensic
interviewers (N = 181) estimated the likelihood of abuse and listed questions to the
victim to obtain details of the alleged abusive events. Contrary to our hypotheses,
participants rendered more pro-prosecution, pro-victim case decisions when exposed to
no contextual information (vs. irrelevant contextual information) describing alleged
victims’ psychosocial history. Effects of contextual information varied as a function of
participant gender, but only when participants were exposed to irrelevant contextual
information. As expected, women (vs. men) rendered more pro-prosecution, pro-victim
case decisions when exposed to irrelevant contextual information. Participants’
evaluations of the forensic interview transcript and questions listed to the victim did not
vary as a function of contextual information. The results revealed potential jurors’ and
child forensic interviewers’ case decision making varied according to irrelevant
contextual information they received describing alleged victims’ psychosocial history,
demonstrating evidence of confirmation bias. The findings underscore novel policy
recommendations to limit fact finders’ exposure to irrelevant contextual information in
child sexual abuse cases to mitigate confirmation bias
Description
item.page.type
Article
item.page.format
Keywords
child sexual abuse, investigation, confirmation bias, research
Citation
Miller, Q. C. (2022). An Empirical Test of Cognitive Bias: Does Contextual Information Influence Assessments of Child Sexual Abuse Cases? [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Toledo.