Psychologists and other professionals are often appointed by the courts to assist families in resolving post-separation disputes and to assist judges in making orders on behalf of the best interests of the child(ren). Although these evaluations provide valuable information to the court, they require assessing areas of human behavior that are imprecisely defined or lacking professional consensus. As parents separate, their disputes may become more challenging, and they may act in uncharacteristic and unpredictable ways. Families that cannot solve their own challenges outside of court often show high levels of conflict and/or have issues that are extremely complex, including domestic violence allegations, resist-refuse family dynamics, and relocation requests. Evaluators and judges, being human, tend to oversimplify complex issues due to the limitations of the human brain. Evaluators are subject to cognitive biases that result from the use of mental heuristics, leading to shortcuts and errors in their reasoning and judgment. Other biases, such as implicit and explicit cultural biases, often influence evaluators' reasoning and conclusions. This article explores various biases that affect and potentially diminish the quality of an evaluator's work. We conclude by addressing “de-biasing” strategies that can reduce, but not negate, the risks associated with such biases.

中文翻译：

---

识别和管理育儿计划评估中评估者的偏见

法庭经常任命心理学家和其他专业人员来协助家庭解决分居后的纠纷，并协助法官代表孩子的最大利益做出命令。尽管这些评估为法院提供了有价值的信息，但它们需要评估定义不明确或缺乏专业共识的人类行为领域。当父母分居时，他们的争执可能会变得更具挑战性，他们的行为可能会变得不寻常且不可预测。无法在法庭外解决自己挑战的家庭往往会表现出高度冲突和/或问题极其复杂，包括家庭暴力指控、抵制-拒绝家庭动态和搬迁请求。评估者和法官作为人，由于人脑的局限性，人们往往会将复杂的问题过于简单化。评估者容易受到因使用心理启发法而产生的认知偏差，从而导致他们在推理和判断中走捷径和出现错误。其他偏见，例如隐性和显性的文化偏见，通常会影响评估者的推理和结论。本文探讨了影响并可能降低评估人员工作质量的各种偏见。最后，我们提出了“消除偏见”策略，这些策略可以减少但不能消除与此类偏见相关的风险。往往会影响评估者的推理和结论。本文探讨了影响并可能降低评估人员工作质量的各种偏见。最后，我们提出了“消除偏见”策略，这些策略可以减少但不能消除与此类偏见相关的风险。往往会影响评估者的推理和结论。本文探讨了影响并可能降低评估人员工作质量的各种偏见。最后，我们提出了“消除偏见”策略，这些策略可以减少但不能消除与此类偏见相关的风险。