Editing Confirmation bias (section)

=== Politics, law and policing ===
[[File:Witness impeachment.jpg|thumb|right|alt=A woman and a man reading a document in a courtroom|[[Mock trial]]s allow researchers to examine confirmation biases in a realistic setting.]]
Nickerson argues that reasoning in judicial and political contexts is sometimes subconsciously biased, favoring conclusions that judges, juries or governments have already committed to.<ref name ="nickerson"/>{{rp|191–193}} Since the evidence in a jury trial can be complex, and jurors often reach decisions about the verdict early on, it is reasonable to expect an attitude polarization effect. The prediction that jurors will become more extreme in their views as they see more evidence has been borne out in experiments with [[mock trial]]s.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Myers |first1=D.G. |first2=H. |last2=Lamm |year=1976 |title=The group polarization phenomenon |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=83 |pages=602–527 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 |issue=4}} via {{Harvnb|Nickerson|1998|pp=193–194}}</ref><ref name="halpern">{{Citation |last=Halpern |first=Diane F. |title=Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |year=1987 |page=194 |isbn=978-0-8058-2731-6 |oclc=37180929}}</ref> Both [[Inquisitorial system|inquisitorial]] and [[Adversarial system|adversarial]] criminal justice systems are affected by confirmation bias.<ref>{{Citation |last=Roach |first= Kent |ssrn=1619124 |title=Wrongful convictions: Adversarial and inquisitorial themes |journal= North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation |volume=35 | year=2010 | pages=387–446 | quote=Quote: Both adversarial and inquisitorial systems seem subject to the dangers of tunnel vision or confirmation bias.}}</ref>

Confirmation bias can be a factor in creating or extending conflicts, from emotionally charged debates to wars: by interpreting the evidence in their favor, each opposing party can become overconfident that it is in the stronger position.<ref name="baron191">{{Harvnb|Baron|2000|pp=191, 195}}</ref> On the other hand, confirmation bias can result in people ignoring or misinterpreting the signs of an imminent or incipient conflict. For example, psychologists [[Stuart Sutherland]] and Thomas Kida have each argued that [[U.S. Navy]] Admiral [[Husband E. Kimmel]] showed confirmation bias when playing down the first signs of the Japanese [[attack on Pearl Harbor]].<ref name="sutherland" /><ref>{{Harvnb|Kida|2006|p=155}}</ref>

A two-decade study of political pundits by [[Philip E. Tetlock]] found that, on the whole, their predictions were not much better than chance. Tetlock divided experts into "foxes" who maintained multiple hypotheses, and "hedgehogs" who were more dogmatic. In general, the hedgehogs were much less accurate. Tetlock blamed their failure on confirmation bias, and specifically on their inability to make use of new information that contradicted their existing theories.<ref>{{Citation |last=Tetlock |first=Philip E. |title=Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, NJ |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-691-12302-8 |oclc=56825108 |pages=125–128}}</ref>

In police investigations, a detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then sometimes largely seek supporting or confirming evidence, ignoring or downplaying falsifying evidence.<ref>{{Citation|last=O'Brien| first=B. | title=Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations | journal=Psychology, Public Policy, and Law | date=2009 |volume=15 | issue=4 | pages=315–334 |doi=10.1037/a0017881}}</ref>