Prisoners’ Positive Illusions of Their Post-Release Success

Prisoners' forecasts of post-release success may have implications for how they respond to imprisonment, release, and parole decisions. We examined sentenced US and UK prisoners' forecasts of recidivism, and how well UK prisoners believed they would fare compared to the average other prisoner. In both samples, forecasts of recidivism were unrealistically optimistic when compared to official statistics on recidivism. UK prisoners also demonstrated a self-enhancement bias by forecasting that they were less likely to re-offend than other prisoners. Prisoners' forecasts of recidivism were predicted by only a few of the pre-prison, in-prison, and post-prison factors that have been shown to be associated with actual recidivism. We discuss the implications of these findings and propose avenues for future research.     

Creating Convergence: Debiasing Biased Litigants

Previous experimental research has found that self-Serving biases are a major cause of negotiation impasses. In this study we show that a simple intervention can mitigate such biases and promote efficient settlement of disputes.     

Lessons from Analogical Reasoning in the Teaching of Negotiation

After two decades of spectacular growth in negotiation research, teaching,and application, it is appropriate to pause and consider how negotiatorslearn, a strikingly fundamental but infrequently examined issue. In thisreport, we present some initial and on-going research and thinking onlearning about negotiation skills, providing one view of the relationshipbetween negotiation pedagogy and negotiation practice.     

Self-Interest,Automaticity, and the Psychology of Conflict of Interest

This paper argues that self-interest and concern for others influence behavior through different cognitive systems. Self-interest is automatic, viscerally compelling, and often unconscious. Understanding one's ethical and professional obligations to others, in contrast, often involves a more thoughtful process. The automatic nature of self-interest gives it a primal power to influence judgment and make it difficult for people to understand its influence on their judgment, let alone eradicate its influence. This dual-process view offers new insights into how conflict of interest operate and it suggests some new avenues for addressing them or limiting some of their greatest dangers.     

偏好与理性选择：保守主义人士也能接受的规制——行为经济学与“非对称父爱主义”的案例

非对称父爱主义的规制目的是帮助那些有限理性的人们避免犯成本过高的错误,同时仅对理性的人们加以很小的成本甚至不加以成本。结合了认知心理学与经济学的行为经济学表明,有时候即便有健康心智的人们在某些特定的、可预见的情形下也可能不会为他们长远的自身利益行事,很多非对称父爱主义的规制就是基于这种考虑而产生的。这些规制体现在缺省规则、对信息的提供或重组、冷却期、对消费者选择的限制等方面。非对称父爱主义并不必定是严厉的,它可能会引导产生比现有政策更温和的规则。而且新技术为将这种规制作为一种新的对规制选择的成本收益评估标准提供了新的可能性,因而值得被认真对待。     

Inviting Scientific Discourse on Traumatic Dissociation: Progress Made and Obstacles to Further Resolution

Psychological Injury and Law - This paper emerged from a five-part exchange on trauma-related dissociation in forensic contexts between the authors and Merckelbach and colleagues (2017–2019)....     

Firebug! Dissociative Identity Disorder? Malingering? Or …? An Intensive Case Study of an Arsonist

Psychological Injury and Law - Courts struggle with questions of how to assess competency to stand trial (CTS) and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) in dissociative identity disorder (DID)....     

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relativelyuncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the contextof an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of stateresponsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyseshave recently been completed: the International Commission ofInquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice'sJudgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodologyfor determining whether a state is responsible for genocide,they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whetherthe ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a statepolicy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed thata state commits genocide through the acts of its officials,holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose actsare legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide,then the international responsibility of that state is incurred.This article critically examines the different methodologicalapproaches taken by these two bodies in light of internationaljurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred infocusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officialsin Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather thanon the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition,it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determinestate responsibility or individual criminal responsibility,its approach was at variance with international law as elucidatedin the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed bythe ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgmentreestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existenceof a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, isnot an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent(however that may be defined) is not a part of determining stateresponsibility for genocide.     

Trauma-Related Dissociation Is No Fantasy: Addressing the Errors of Omission and Commission in Merckelbach and Patihis (2018)

Dissociation is commonly a response to trauma that can be associated with significant impairment. In order to deal with dissociation in court from a comprehensive, scientifically informed, and valid perspective, Brand, Schielke, and Brams (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) provided a balanced view of dissociation, its characteristics, evidence base, and best assessment practices. Without an approach such as this, forensic experts risk having insufficient knowledge in its causation, phenomenology, and assessment and accordingly misunderstand trauma-related dissociation (TRD). Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) addressed this issue by providing an overview of TRD relevant to forensic contexts, acknowledging some of the erroneous and misinformed approaches to the topic. Merckelbach and Patihis (2018) offered a critique of Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297, 2017a, b) that illustrated this lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about TRD. Many of the statements made by these authors are conceptually inaccurate or scientifically misinformed. As we show, they were incorrect when they stated that research is lacking about the inter-rater reliability of dissociative disorder (DD) diagnoses. They were unaware of the error rates of tests and interviews among dissociative samples, which we present here. Merckelbach and Patihis challenged Brand et al., arguing their methods and literature review “lacked a connectivity to existing science” (p. 3), despite extensive citations of studies with DD patients. They argued that we failed to adequately consider malingering despite our discussions of empirically supported methods for assessing it. We show that Merckelbach and Patihis overlooked research that does not support their views. As we review their comments, we illustrate their pattern of misreading and misunderstanding our papers, as well as lapses in their reasoning. The current paper reinforces that in the forensic context, experts can acquire adequate understanding of TRD and its evidence base, and put forward arguments against any harsh critique of the area that is uninformed about, misunderstands, or includes omissions and errors in critical conceptualization, state-of-the-art assessment practices, and research methodology and results.