Cognitive Approach - Reliability of Cognitive Processes - Biases in Thinking and Decision-Making

Question 1

Cognitive Bias

Answer 1

• An error (illogical, systematic) in thinking that affects the decisions and judgements people make

Question 2

Heuristics

Answer 2

• Mental shortcuts that make decisions easier because they allow the use of fewer pieces of information

Question 3

Anchoring Bias

Answer 3

• The tendency to rely too heavily on the 1st piece of information offered when making decisions

Question 4

Confirmation Bias

Answer 4

• The tendency to seek out information to confirm what you already believe and overlook information that does not

Question 5

Hill et al. (2008)

Answer 5

Aim:
- Investigate the effect of expectations of guilt on interviewer questioning style (the role of confirmation bias)

Pps:
- 61 Scottish students

Procedure:
- Pps randomly assigned
- 2 conditions
- guilty expectation condition (N=30)
- innocent expectation condition (N=31)
- Each were provided with a scenario
- guilty expectation condition:
- informed that “approximately four out of five
participants in the study (89%) look at the
answer sheet
- innocent expectation condition
- informed that “approximately four out of five
participants in the study (80%) do not look at
the answer sheet
- Pps were told to prepare an interview w one of the pps to find out what had happened
- they should write questions
- Raters, blind to the conditions, coded questions
- guilt-presumptive or
- innocence-presumptive
- Questions rated from a scale 0 to 6
- 0 extremely innocence-presumptive
- 6 extremely guilt-presumptive

Results

• Pps in the guilty-expectation condition formulated more guilt-presumptive qs
  
  • 28% for guilty-expectation
  • 16% for innocent-expectation
• Qs from the guilt-presumptive condition was on average rated as higher in guilt-presumptiveness
  
  • 3.62 for guilt-presumptive
  • 3.33 for innocence-presumptive

Question 6

Englich and Mussweiler (2001)

Answer 6

Aim:
- Investigate if anchoring bias (that sentencing demands can serve as anchors) could play a significant role in determining sentencing in courtrooms

Pps:
- 44 senior German law students

Procedure:
- PPS were given a scenario of a rape case, along with copies of the relevant passages from the penal code

• The materials were related to a case of an alleged rape
• After pps had formed an option about the case, they were handed a questionnaire.
• 1/2 of the participants were first told that the prosecutor demanded a sentence of 34 months, and the other half 12 months, for the defendant.
• They had to indicate whether this sentence was too low, adequate, or too high.
• After, pps were asked to indicate the sentence they would give

Results:
- for 34 months: pps recommended on average 8 months longer in prison than for 12 months