The Nuance of Bias in Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: The Effect of Forensic Evaluators’ Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation

Evaluator opinions of defendants’ criminal responsibility can have substantial implications for justice and fairness; however, research suggests these judgments have poor interrater reliability. This study examined whether forensic evaluators’ levels of right-wing authoritarianism and/or social dominance orientation are associated with their Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) opinions. Forensic evaluators read a case vignette and provided their psycholegal opinion regarding whether the defendant met NGRI criteria. Participants also responded to measures assessing the relevant social attitudes. Results revealed a nuanced relationship between social attitudes and judgments of criminal responsibility, highlighting individual differences as a potential source of bias.