OBJECTIVE Cognitive biases can impact experts' judgments and decisions. We offer a broad descriptive model of how bias affects human judgment. Although studies have explored the role of cognitive biases and debiasing techniques in forensic mental health, we conducted the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings. HYPOTHESES Given the exploratory nature of this review, we did not test formal hypotheses. General research questions included the proportion of studies focusing on cognitive biases and/or debiasing, the research methods applied, the cognitive biases and debiasing strategies empirically studied in the forensic context, their effects on forensic mental health decisions, and effect sizes. METHOD A systematic search of PsycINFO and Google Scholar resulted in 22 records comprising 23 studies in the United States, Canada, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We extracted data on participants, context, methods, and results. RESULTS Most studies focused only on cognitive biases (k = 16, 69.6%), with fewer investigating ways to address them (k = 7, 30.4%). Of the 17 studies that tested for biases, 10 found significant effects (58.8%), four found partial effects (23.5%), and three found no effects (17.6%). Foci included general perceptions of biases; adversarial allegiance; bias blind spot; hindsight and confirmation biases; moral disengagement; primacy and recency effects; interview suggestibility; and cross-cultural, racial, and gender biases. Of the seven debiasing-related studies, nearly all (k = 6) focused at least in part on the general perception of debiasing strategies, with three testing for specific effects (i.e., cognitive bias training, consider-the-opposite, and introspection caution), two of which yielded significant effects. CONCLUSIONS Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity limited quantitative comparability. Future research could build on the existing literature to develop or adapt effective debiasing strategies in collaboration with practitioners to improve the quality of forensic mental health decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

人类判断和系统审查中特定于法医心理健康的认知偏差的一般模型。

客观认知偏差会影响专家的判断和决策。我们提供了一个广泛的描述性模型来说明偏见如何影响人类判断。尽管研究已经探讨了认知偏差和去偏差技术在法医心理健康中的作用，但我们还是进行了第一次系统评价来识别、评估和总结研究结果。假设鉴于本次综述的探索性性质，我们没有测试正式的假设。一般研究问题包括关注认知偏见和/或去偏见的研究比例、所应用的研究方法、在法医背景下实证研究的认知偏见和去偏见策略、它们对法医心理健康决策的影响以及效应大小。方法 对 PsycINFO 和 Google Scholar 进行系统搜索，得出 22 条记录，其中包括美国、加拿大、芬兰、意大利、荷兰和英国的 23 项研究。我们提取了有关参与者、背景、方法和结果的数据。结果 大多数研究仅关注认知偏差（k = 16，69.6%），很少有研究解决这些偏差的方法（k = 7，30.4%）。在测试偏倚的 17 项研究中，10 项发现显着影响（58.8%），四项发现部分影响（23.5%），三项发现没有影响（17.6%）。焦点包括对偏见的一般看法；敌对的效忠；偏差盲点；事后诸葛亮和确认偏差；道德脱离；首因效应和近因效应；面试暗示性；以及跨文化、种族和性别偏见。在七项与去偏见相关的研究中，几乎所有（k = 6）都至少部分关注对去偏见策略的一般看法，并针对具体效果进行了三项测试（即认知偏见训练、相反考虑和内省谨慎） ），其中两项取得了显着的效果。结论 相当大的临床和方法学异质性限制了定量可比性。未来的研究可以在现有文献的基础上与从业者合作制定或调整有效的去偏见策略，以提高法医心理健康决策的质量。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。