The 'elasticity' of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1245-1259

  Ask, Karl ^a   Rebelius, Anna ^a   Granhag, Pär Anders ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60849108665     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1432     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alison, L., Barrett, E., & Crego, J. (2007). Criminal investigative decision making: Context and process. In R. R. Hoffman (Ed.), Expertise out of context (pp. 79-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
3. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007a). Hot cognition in investigative judgments: The differential influence of anger and sadness. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 537-551.
4. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007b). Motivational bias in criminal investigators' judgments of witness reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 561-591.
5. Crego, J., & Alison, L. (2004). Control and legacy as functions of perceived criticality in major incidents. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 207-225.
6. Ditto, P. H., & Boardman, A. F. (1995). Perceived accuracy of favorable and unfavorable psychological feedback. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 137-157.
7. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584.
8. Ditto, P. H., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., Scepansky, J. A., & Lockhart, L. K. (2003). Spontaneous skepticism: The interplay of motivation and expectation in responses to favorable and unfavorable medical diagnoses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1120-1132.
9. Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., & Lockhart, L. K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53-69.
10. Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74-78.
11. Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical problem solving: An analysis of clinical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
13. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 709-727.
14. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation, accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford Press.
15. Hoffman R. R. (Ed.), (2007). Expertise out of context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 330-337.
17. Hsee, C. K. (1996). Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 122-129.
18. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.
19. Klein, G., Phillips, J. K., Rall, E. L., & Peluso, D. A. (2007). A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In R. R. Hoffman (Ed.), Expertise out of context (pp. 113-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 493-520). New York: Guilford Press.
21. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
22. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
23. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
24. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.
25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
26. Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. J., & Crombag, H. F. M. (1993). Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. New York: St. Martin's Press.
27. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273-281.
28. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
30. Zsambok, C. E. & Klein G. (Eds.). (1997). Naturalistic decision making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.