Buongiorno L, Mele F, Petroni G, Margari A, Carabellese F, Catanesi R, Mandarelli G
Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Criminology and Forensic Psychiatry, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari Policlinico Hospital, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy; Department of Human Neurosciences, University of Rome "Sapienza", Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari Policlinico Hospital, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2025 Jul-Aug;101:102083. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102083. Epub 2025 Mar 5.
Forensic psychiatry plays a critical role in legal contexts but is highly susceptible to cognitive biases that can undermine the accuracy and objectivity of evaluations. This scoping review, guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, aims to identify and analyze cognitive biases within forensic psychiatric practice across criminal, civil, and testimonial domains. A comprehensive search across five databases yielded 7002 records, with 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. From these studies, ten distinct cognitive biases were identified, with the most frequently discussed being gender bias (29.2 %), allegiance bias (20.8 %), and confirmation bias (20.8 %), followed by hindsight, cultural, and emotional biases. Most studies focused on criminal settings, with only two addressing civil contexts. Among the mitigation strategies reviewed, structured methodologies and the "considering the opposite" technique were the most positively evaluated and widely discussed approaches. Conversely, the self-awareness strategy was criticized for its limited effectiveness in reducing bias. Emerging tools, such as artificial intelligence, offer potential solutions but require robust ethical safeguards to prevent the perpetuation of systemic biases. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on biases in forensic psychiatry, underscoring the need for further empirical studies to explore their prevalence, mechanisms, and effective mitigation strategies in greater depth.
法医精神病学在法律背景中发挥着关键作用，但极易受到认知偏差的影响，这些偏差可能会损害评估的准确性和客观性。本范围综述以阿克西和奥马利框架为指导，旨在识别和分析刑事、民事和证人领域法医精神病学实践中的认知偏差。对五个数据库进行的全面检索产生了7002条记录，其中24项研究符合纳入标准。从这些研究中，识别出了十种不同的认知偏差，讨论最多的是性别偏差（29.2%）、忠诚偏差（20.8%）和确认偏差（20.8%），其次是后见之明偏差、文化偏差和情感偏差。大多数研究集中在刑事领域，只有两项涉及民事背景。在所审查的缓解策略中，结构化方法和“考虑反面情况”技术是评价最为积极且讨论广泛的方法。相反，自我意识策略因其在减少偏差方面效果有限而受到批评。人工智能等新兴工具提供了潜在的解决方案，但需要强有力的道德保障措施来防止系统性偏差的延续。本范围综述全面概述了法医精神病学中偏差研究的现状，强调需要进一步开展实证研究，以更深入地探讨其普遍性、机制和有效的缓解策略。
