Psychological assessment in forensic settings: new methodological conceptions and ethical considerations

Area of Science:

• Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of Science

Background:

• Forensic evaluations require high scientific standards, but clinical reasoning needs theoretical grounding.
• Current methods lack a robust epistemological framework for complex diagnostic reasoning.
• Existing practices are vulnerable to cognitive biases and errors.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose an epistemological framework for forensic evaluations grounded in C. S. Peirce's theory of abduction.
• To reconceptualize forensic case formulation as an iterative, multi-level abductive process.
• To introduce a fractal model of abductive reasoning to explain diagnostic processes and errors.

Main Methods:

• Theoretical analysis of C. S. Peirce's abduction.
• Development of a fractal model of abductive reasoning applied to clinical inference.
• Reconceptualization of forensic case formulation within an abductive framework.
• Illustration with three case vignettes from Italian legal proceedings.

Main Results:

• Forensic case formulation is framed as a multi-level abductive process, moving from specific signs to broader hypotheses.
• A fractal model illustrates how diagnostic errors can occur due to a 'collapse of the fractal'.
• The framework offers safeguards against biases like confirmation bias and first-impression effects.

Conclusions:

• Abductive reasoning provides a rigorous epistemological foundation for forensic evaluations.
• The fractal model offers a novel way to understand and potentially prevent diagnostic errors.
• Methodological and ethical recommendations are provided to improve the quality and reliability of forensic assessments.