Measuring the Objectivity and Bias of Experts

Arizona State University, Scottsdale AZ

Investigators

Abstract

Expert testimony is often a critical aspect of criminal and civil trials, in part because of perceived objectivity of experts and their expertise. Yet, individuals are susceptible to psychological biases that can compromise objective judgment and decision making, even if they are unaware of their own bias while recognizing it in others. If experts are similarly susceptible to bias, then their compromised objectivity could influence the outcome of trials, perhaps raising constitutional issues with respect to fair trials. This project will measure and document experts' perception of their own biases, as well as the consequences of their potential misperceptions of those biases. As a consequence, this project has the potential to inform actors in the legal system about ways to limit bias in expert decision making. This project will employ surveys and experiments designed to document biases of experts, and their perception of those biases. Further, it will examine differences that experts and non-experts have with respect to their biases. The focus will be on experts in the legal field, including forensic mental health and fingerprint identification experts. The project will test the hypothesis of "bias blind spot," which is the tendency to recognize bias in others but not oneself. Thus, the project is designed to compare any bias blind spots of experts with that of non-experts. Surveys of experts and non-experts in various fields will be utilized to document experts' and non-experts' bias blind spots. Then, the project will employ experiments that measure experts' actual susceptibility to various biases and their awareness of those susceptibilities. The project also will investigate the consequences of exaggerated confidence in experts' objectivity. De-identified data from the project will be made publicly available.