Abstract
The analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH) has been suggested to be a method that can protect against confirmation bias in the context of intelligence analysis. In the current study, we aimed to determine whether ACH could counter confirmation bias in the reasoning with evidence in the context of criminal law proceedings. Law students (N = 191) received information about the ACH method or general information about biases. They were given a case vignette with a main suspect and a list of 24 questions, 6 of which they could ask about the case. Half of the questions related to incriminating information, whereas the other half related to exonerating information. Contrary to our expectations, participants in both conditions favoured questions relating to exonerating information and rated the exonerating evidence as being more important for their decision. Despite the lack of bias observed, it seems participants failed to properly apply the ACH method.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 62-70 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Applied Cognitive Psychology |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 24 Aug 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jan 2021 |
Funding
This research is supported by a fellowship awarded from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Program The House of Legal Psychology (EMJD‐LP) with Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) 2013‐0036 and Specific Grant Agreement (SGA) 532473‐EM‐5‐2017‐1‐NL‐ERA MUNDUS‐EPJD. We would like to thank Imke Jacobs for her help with data collection and Stephanie Blom for her help with creating the material.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Forecast Public Art | 2013‐0036 |
Keywords
- ACH
- confirmation bias
- evidence
- legal decision-making
