Thinking Like an Expert
Full course description
Some have argued that the story behind miscarriages of justice is, in fact, the story of expert errors and misjudgements. Indeed, experts play an important role in judicial decision-making; the law expects them to base their decisions on scientifically grounded principles. Consider the handwriting expert who has to decide whether a ransom note was written by the defendant. Or the child psychologist who has to decide whether a child should stay with an emotionally labile mother who psychologically abuses her. Should we trust the expertise of these professionals? How can their decisions be improved? Psychometrics, decision-making and other issues typically thought of as province of expert witnesses are discussed in depth in this course. The course focuses on cognitive biases that affect experts.
The final assessment for this course is a numerical grade between 0,0 and 10,0.
Course objectives
At the end of this course students:
- can explain and critically evaluate the theoretical background/anchors of the literature on biases, specifically the notion of dual processing;
- can explain key concepts in the psychological literature on expertise and feedback;
- can articulate biases that have been particularly well-studied in the context of legal decision making. Specifically, they can explain what these biases are and how they are operationalized in and evoked by experimental procedures;
- can explain and use key terms from the decision making literature, notably sensitivity, specificity, base rate, positive and negative predictive power, ROC, and AUC;
- can perform calculations required to determine Odds ratios, Likelihood ratios, and optimal cut-offs on tests;
- can specify procedures that may reduce the risk of biases, i.e., effective de-biasing methods.