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

University Of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa AL

Investigators

Abstract

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.