Allegiance bias

History

"Therapeutic allegiance of the experimenter was first used by Luborsky Singer, and Luborsky" in a journal article published in 1975. The basis of their study looked for comparisons among some psychotherapy practices. They found that patients fared better when combined treatments of therapies were used versus only one treatment applied. They found the strongest allegiance are those therapists who are the authors of new implemented practices or supervise others in a practice. They will tend to use their treatment more often.

Psychotherapy

One reason why this occurs in psychotherapy is that there are many new therapies being implemented and researched. Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others."

Forensic psychology

Most often, forensic experts tend to form a biased opinion in favor of the party retaining their services, rather than maintaining objectivity based on the available evidence. Some studies have evaluated biases in legal cases and have observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a specific party or attorney due to their preexisting attitude in favor of capital punishment. This predisposition may lead them to be more receptive to accepting capital case referrals from certain adversarial parties, indicating a partial allegiance to cases that align with their opinions. These biases have the potential to undermine justice in legal proceedings, posing a threat to our society. The American Psychological Association is aware of the impact of biases and has developed guidelines to address these preexisting attitudes and biases. These guidelines aim to assist forensic psychologists in maintaining objectivity when selecting court cases.

A study conducted by Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020) attempted to reduce bias through falsified instructions. Participants were provided with a case file and a letter from either the prosecution or defense, instructing them to critically evaluate both sides. However, the intervention did not yield a significant effect. Participants were still influenced by the party they were assigned to, similar to when they did not receive any instructions. The bias effect size was found to be medium. The authors emphasize the significance of cross-examinations in forensic contexts until effective interventions to mitigate allegiance bias are identified.

In a study by McAuliff, B. and Arter, J. (2016), the phenomenon of allegiance bias in cases of child sexual abuse was examined. In an online study, experts were assigned to either the prosecution or defense. They were shown one of two versions of a video depicting a police interview with a 4-year-old girl, with the videos varying in the suggestibility of the interview. One interview version included suggestive questions, that imply or lead the respondent toward a particular answer, while the other contained neutral questions that allow an open response. The experts were tasked with evaluating the interview, the child's testimony, and answering follow-up questions related to their ability to testify as experts and the specific aspects of the interview they would focus on in their testimony. The study revealed significant effects: experts were more inclined to support the prosecution's case when the interview's suggestibility was low, and conversely, they were more likely to support the defense when suggestibility was high. Thus, it was demonstrated that even experts are susceptible to the allegiance bias. The researchers highlighted the importance of opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and, in extreme cases, even the threat of prosecution as strategies to help mitigate allegiance bias.

Analyses

Allegiance bias is also evident when authors and researchers critique each other's work. In some cases, studies assert that a prior article validated a bias, creating a cycle of reinforcement. It is crucial to scrutinize the methods by which these authors arrive at their conclusions. They may inadvertently exhibit allegiance bias by selectively testing previous articles against their own work and overstating the conclusions they draw. Ironically, these authors may be employing allegiance bias to affirm the accuracy of their own research findings.