Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The analysis of competing hypotheses and expert witness testimony: Counteracting adversarial allegiance in witness credibility assessments?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The analysis of competing hypotheses and expert witness testimony: Counteracting adversarial allegiance in witness credibility assessments?
Do you wish to request the book?
The analysis of competing hypotheses and expert witness testimony: Counteracting adversarial allegiance in witness credibility assessments?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The analysis of competing hypotheses and expert witness testimony: Counteracting adversarial allegiance in witness credibility assessments?
2026
Overview
Cognitive biases, such as adversarial allegiance, can compromise expert witness evaluations and contribute to wrongful convictions. Therefore, the application of debiasing strategies is essential. The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) has been proposed as a potential method to reduce such bias, although empirical support remains limited. The present study investigated the effectiveness of the ACH method in mitigating adversarial allegiance in a sample of mock expert witnesses for credibility assessments. In an online experiment, 159 participants with prior knowledge in credibility assessments reviewed a summary of a child sexual abuse case. Before reviewing the case material, participants were randomly assigned to one of three retaining party conditions: defense, accessory prosecution, or court. Next, half of the participants were instructed to apply the ACH method which includes the systematic comparison of alternative hypotheses within a matrix. Meanwhile the control group was instructed to follow the standard approach in credibility assessments in Germany, which includes the evaluation and falsification of alternative hypotheses, albeit in a less structured way than the ACH method. Outcomes were assessed using credibility ratings and an Evidence Score, the latter reflecting the extent to which participants weighed evidence in favor of their retaining party or evaluated information more evenly. No significant differences emerged in credibility ratings across conditions. However, adversarial allegiance was evident in the Evidence Score: defense-retained participants emphasized evidence undermining the statement’s credibility more than those retained by the accessory prosecution. At the same time, the application of the ACH method did not significantly influence credibility ratings or evidence selection. Overall, these findings suggest that the ACH method may have limited utility as a debiasing strategy in the context of credibility assessments and underscore the challenges of mitigating bias in forensic decision-making.
Publisher
Public Library of Science,PLOS,Public Library of Science (PLoS)
