Bias risk rises under emotional, ambiguous, and low-effort decision conditions

Evidence

This reality leads us to emphasize the importance of institutions and stakeholders to put into place long-term practices that will minimize the effects of such bias (Godsil & Jiang, 2017). This will require identifying the decisions and interactions where the risks of bias are greatest and developing interventions suited to override the role bias may play. Examples of such tools include the creation of a prosecutor override card, similar to a judge’s bench card, which outlines the necessary questions prosecutors should ask before engaging in a charging/sentencing decision (Godsil & Jiang, 2017). The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has identified factors that exacerbate the risk of bias: intensified emotional states, ambiguity of information, salient social categories, low-effort cognitive processing, distracted or pressured decision-making circumstances, and a lack of clear feedback loops (Casey et al., 2012). As a result, the use of an objective checklist to assist prosecutors in curbing bias is essential to reduce the impact of these factors. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1395

Overcoming the automaticity of implicit biases may be particularly challenging given the constant barrage of negative stereotypes both in the media and within the context of the CJS. This reality leads us to emphasize the importance of institutions and stakeholders to put into place long-term practices that will minimize the effects of such bias (Godsil & Jiang, 2017). This will require identifying the decisions and interactions where the risks of bias are greatest and developing interventions suited to override the role bias may play. Examples of such tools include the creation of a prosecutor override card, similar to a judge’s bench card, which outlines the necessary questions prosecutors should ask before engaging in a charging/sentencing decision (Godsil & Jiang, 2017). The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has identified factors that exacerbate the risk of bias: intensified emotional states, ambiguity of information, salient social categories, low-effort cognitive processing, distracted or pressured decision-making circumstances, and a lack of clear feedback loops (Casey et al., 2012). As a result, the use of an objective checklist to assist prosecutors in curbing bias is essential to reduce the impact of these factors. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1395

Categorization

• DEFINE: Enumerates the NCSC’s six identified bias-exacerbating conditions, a compact checklist category worth keeping.
• QUESTION: The NCSC risk-factor list (ambiguity, emotional intensity, salient categories, low-effort processing) is directly usable in the reader’s work on when threat-hardened beliefs resist correction.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s broader question of when rational correction backfires versus when it can be overridden by structural checklists rather than appeals to conscience. — connects to: Online, negative emotions are easier to generate than positive ones, biasing engagement — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 397; Vague, ever-reviewable assessment criteria generate functional anxiety in workers. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 1660; Stress drives the brain toward cognitively cheaper confirmation bias — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 117 (+2 more)
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1395