The potential conflict between clinical and judicial decision making heuristics.

Abstract

The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS; Gudjonsson, 1984) was introduced as a tool for identifying suspects who are at risk of making false confessions. High GSS-scores indicate a greater risk of making false confessions. Recently, some authors have claimed that low GSS-scores can be used to support the credibility of recovered memories. This new application broadens the use of the GSS in two ways. First, low GSS-scores are considered to possess diagnostic value. Second, the GSS is advocated as a practical tool in clinical settings. This article critically evaluates such a clinical application of the GSS. Our main argument has to do with the incompatibility of basic clinical and judicial decision making heuristics. Psychotherapists, and other medical professionals, should base their decisions on different parameters than judicial professionals. Compared to judicial heuristics, clinical heuristics can be characterized as more empathetic, less critical, and less conservative. Given these differences, clinical conclusions (including those about the accuracy of recovered memories) cannot be easily translated into judicial decisions. If they do enter the judicial domain, these conclusions may lead to dubious forensic decisions.