Abstract:
Evaluator opinions of defendants' mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) can influence the trier of fact (e.g., judge, jury) and have substantial implications for justice and fairness; however, research suggests these judgments have poor interrater reliability. One explanation is that individual differences, such as social attitudes, may unintentionally bias evaluators. The current vignette-based study examined whether individual differences in forensic evaluators' right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were associated with their MSO psycholegal opinions. Results indicate forensic evaluators higher in Traditionalism (a component of right-wing authoritarianism) are more likely to opine a defendant meets the criteria for a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict; however, overall, individual differences in forensic evaluators' right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation are not associated with their MSO psycholegal opinion. These findings underlie the importance of examining specific individual difference factors to gain better insight into what factors may or may not influence forensic evaluators' psycholegal opinions.
