—By Bridget O’Sullivan
At the third and final RA Luncheon of the summer, Professor Dan Simon presented research on the role that objectivity plays in the investigation of an alleged crime. The research addresses aspects of both law and psychology by examining whether the manner in which investigations are structured could affect the investigative outcomes.
Specifically, the research is designed to compare investigations conducted under the Anglo-American and Continental European legal systems. Under our system, police investigators are faced with the double
role of finding the perpetrator, and then gathering evidence for his or her conviction. In this latter role, the police are effectively working on behalf of one of the sides of the adversarial divide. In contrast, under non-adversarial systems, police investigations are conducted by a magistrate and investigators from the judicial branch. The investigation culminates in a dossier of evidence, which is then share by the judges, prosecution, and defense.
The research, conducted in collaboration with Douglas Stenstrom and Stephen Read, was intended to compare investigations conducted under the rivaling systems. Three hundred people participated in the experiments. The group was made up of participants of different ages, backgrounds, levels of education, and political beliefs to control for the possibility that any of these factors could affect the study. The task was to investigate a fictitious, though realistic case. Participants were randomly assigned to investigate the case on behalf of the prosecution, on behalf of the defense, or on behalf of the judge and both parties.
After receiving instructions to be fair and unbiased, participants reviewed evidence both for and against the allegation that a university student committed academic dishonesty. “The study shows that the mere assignment causes people to view the case to be consistent with their roles,” Professor Simon says. Participants who were assigned to investigate on behalf of the prosecution were considerably more likely to believe that the student was guilty, whereas those assigned to the opposite role view the case in the opposite manner.
In sum, Professor Simon explained, “the adversarial assignment yielded polarized conclusions.” Participants who were instructed to conduct an inquisitorial investigation gave answers that fell between the extremes of the adversarial conditions. The psychological element seems to be that adopting adversarial roles provides motivation for accomplishing a goal other than achieving objectivity.
In reality, the bias is bound to be even stronger, says Professor Simon. “In the study, we used a subtle manipulation, and it seemed to push people quite far.” The core problem with police work is that the police have competing roles: they are instructed to be objective, “but they experience numerous pressures to prosecute and close cases,” he says.
The study also found a “cynicism effect” among participants assigned to the adversarial investigations. They were suspicious of the investigator who was said to investigate the case on behalf of the opposite side, and believed that that other person would be suspicious of them. “There is reason to believe that these findings are not limited to investigators, but could apply to other adversarial roles as well,” says Simon.
Previous Article
