I very recently watched a newscast reporting on new leads in an old cold case. The individual being interviewed gave all the reasons why they were sure their investigation had led to something. Having watched this develop and being familiar with case facts, there were several things missing. The other facts that would lead one to think the investigation was something different. These opposing facts can never be ignored, they never go away, and they can lead to investigation disaster and organizational embarrassment. This is a real world example of confirmation bias playing out as sound investigation.
A little more information is now necessary to continue. Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or during an investigation, particular thoughts about a case. This bias can seriously hinder objective reasoning, influence the outcome of investigative interviews, and hinder investigations. In this article, we'll explore what confirmation bias is, its dangers, and the strategies to mitigate its impact, specifically focusing on investigative interviews.
I. Understanding Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias stems from a desire to confirm one's existing beliefs or hypotheses. This tendency is hardwired into the human cognitive process and has been extensively studied in psychology. It is particularly pervasive because it aligns with human nature's tendency to find coherence and meaning in the world around us.
When detectives, investigators, and interviewers are influenced by confirmation bias, they may unconsciously seek information that supports their pre-existing beliefs about a case. Investigators can get tunnel vision and begin to seek facts to confirm their beliefs. This can lead to ignoring or dismissing evidence that might contradict their assumptions, thereby risking an unjust outcome. The first step for investigators is to recognize that confirmation bias happens. It happens to me and it happens to you...yes, even you (don't worry there's a cure).
II. Dangers of Confirmation Bias
There are multiple reasons to be aware of our own biases. Confirmation bias can harm investigations, organizations, and reputations. Several examples are:
Misdirection of Investigation: Just as in my example confirmation bias can lead interviewers down the wrong path, focusing on evidence that supports their initial hypothesis and ignoring contradictory evidence (exculpatory evidence). It can cost time during an investigation or waste resources. Developing a theory about a case and attempting to confirm that theory can lead to wrongful accusations or overlooking the actual culprit
Potential for Unjust Convictions: By focusing solely on information that confirms an interviewer's belief, there is a heightened risk of convicting an innocent person. DNA exonerations have exonerated innocent individuals who were targeted or interrogated longer due to confirmation bias. In many of these cases the actual guilty party roamed free while an innocent person paid the unjust price.
Loss of Integrity for You and Your Employer: If a biased investigation comes to light, you know what they say about things rolling down hill. Confirmation bias can happen at any company during any type of investigation including your corporation, agency, sheriff's office, police department, human resources, or corporate security department.
Erosion of Trust in the Justice System: When biased investigations lead to unjust outcomes, public trust in the legal and justice system can be eroded, undermining the overall integrity of these institutions.
III. Strategies to Counter Confirmation Bias During Investigations
For an interviewer, being aware of confirmation bias and its dangers is the first step in countering it. The next step is to start thinking about your theories, assumptions, and/or case hypotheses while planning prior to an interview. Red teaming techniques are designed to elicit critical thinking and to develop your investigator mindset, here are a couple powerful examples:
On the Contrary: This is one of my favorite critical thinking techniques because it includes playing the devil's advocate. The great thing about on the contrary is you often do not have to ask yourself each one of these questions. Many times one question will be enough to ignite that investigator mindset to make sure you are continuing to think with an mind open and working towards the truth.
On the Contrary questions:
Is the opposite also true?
Is this the only explanation?
Is there a compelling argument that could be made against this? If so, what is it?
Is this the only viable option? The only possible outcome? The only reasonable choice?
Key Assumptions Check: Assumptions are ideas or concepts that might possess truth but lack corroboration at the present moment in your investigation. At face value, nothing is wrong with an assumption, often it is rooted in sound experience. Unfortunately, assumptions amount to little more than an investigator wishing or hoping something were true. When fellow investigators or worse supervisors begin to think an assumption is true, try this to shine light on that assumption/confirmation bias:
Is this logical?
Is this accurate
Is this based on preconceived notions or biases?
How confident are other investigators that this will happen?
If this proves to be untrue, how would that alter the investigation?
Simply challenging yourself and your original case hypotheses (including subsequent ones) is enough to show less bias in an investigation. By fostering a mindset that questions assumptions and/or plays the devil's advocate, will only help your interviews and investigations. Your evidence, assumptions, and theories can be evaluated more objectively by activating critical thinking.
IV. Conclusion
Confirmation bias is a deeply ingrained cognitive tendency that can greatly impact the integrity and outcomes of investigative interviews. By recognizing its dangers and employing strategies such as critical thinking and hypothesis-testing approaches, it's possible to mitigate its negative effects.
By implementing these practices, those involved in the investigative processes can uphold the principles of justice, ensuring a fair and unbiased approach to uncovering the truth.
Bibliography:
Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4(1), 43-63.
Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Harvard University Press.
Hoffman, B. G. (2017). Red teaming: How your business can conquer the competition by challenging everything. Random House Audio Publishing Group.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
O’Brien, Barbara Prime Suspect: An Examination of Factors that Aggravate and Counteract Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 15(4) 315 (2009).
Comments