allegiance bias

“Therapeutic allegiance of the experimenter was first used by Luborsky Singer, and Luborsky" in a journal article published in 1975. The basis of their study looked for comparisons among some psychotherapy practices. They found that patients fared better when combined treatments of therapies were used versus only one treatment applied. They found the strongest allegiance are those therapists who are the authors of new implemented practices or supervise others in a practice. They will tend to use their treatment more often.

Some reasons why this is occurs in psychotherapy is that there are many new therapies being implemented and researched. Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others."

Most often, forensic experts tend to form a biased opinion in favor of the party retaining their services, rather than maintaining objectivity based on the available evidence. Some studies have evaluated biases in legal cases and have observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a specific party or attorney due to their preexisting attitude in favor of capital punishment. This predisposition may lead them to be more receptive to accepting capital case referrals from certain adversarial parties, indicating a partial allegiance to cases that align with their opinions. These biases have the potential to undermine justice in legal proceedings, posing a threat to our society.{{Cite journal|author=Gianni Pirelli|author2=Patricia A. Zapf|author2-link=Patricia A. Zapf|date=2008-04-16|title=An Investigation of Psychologists' Practices and Attitudes toward Participation in Capital Evaluations|journal=Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice|volume=8|issue=1|pages=39–66|doi=10.1080/15228930801947294|s2cid=144255691|issn=1522-8932}} The American Psychological Association is aware of the impact of biases and has developed guidelines to address these preexisting attitudes and biases. These guidelines aim to assist forensic psychologists in maintaining objectivity when selecting court cases.{{Cite web|url=https://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2014/10/expert-opinion|title=Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations|website=apadivisions.org|language=en|access-date=2019-11-21}}

A study conducted by Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020) attempted to reduce bias through falsified instructions. Participants were provided with a case file and a letter from either the prosecution or defense, instructing them to critically evaluate both sides. However, the intervention did not yield a significant effect. Participants were still influenced by the party they were assigned to, similar to when they did not receive any instructions. The bias effect size was found to be medium. The authors emphasize the significance of cross-examinations in forensic contexts until effective interventions to mitigate allegiance bias are identified.{{Cite journal |last1=Sauerland |first1=Melanie |last2=Otgaar |first2=Henry |last3=Maegherman |first3=Enide |last4=Sagana |first4=Anna |date=July 2020 |title=Allegiance Bias in Statement Reliability Evaluations Is Not Eliminated by Falsification Instructions |url=https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000416 |journal=Zeitschrift für Psychologie |volume=228 |issue=3 |pages=210–215 |doi=10.1027/2151-2604/a000416 |issn=2190-8370}}

In a study by McAuliff, B. and Arter, J. (2016), the phenomenon of allegiance bias in cases of child sexual abuse was examined. In an online study, experts were assigned to either the prosecution or defense. They were shown one of two versions of a video depicting a police interview with a 4-year-old girl, with the videos varying in the suggestibility of the interview. One interview version included suggestive questions, that imply or lead the respondent toward a particular answer, while the other contained neutral questions that allow an open response. The experts were tasked with evaluating the interview, the child's testimony, and answering follow-up questions related to their ability to testify as experts and the specific aspects of the interview they would focus on in their testimony. The study revealed significant effects: experts were more inclined to support the prosecution's case when the interview's suggestibility was low, and conversely, they were more likely to support the defense when suggestibility was high. Thus, it was demonstrated that even experts are susceptible to the allegiance bias. The researchers highlighted the importance of opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and, in extreme cases, even the threat of prosecution as strategies to help mitigate allegiance bias.{{Cite journal |last1=McAuliff |first1=Bradley D. |last2=Arter |first2=Jeana L. |date=October 2016 |title=Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand. |journal=Law and Human Behavior |language=en |volume=40 |issue=5 |pages=524–535 |doi=10.1037/lhb0000198 |issn=1573-661X |pmc=5036989 |pmid=27243362}}

Allegiance bias is also evident when authors and researchers critique each other's work. In some cases, studies assert that a prior article validated a bias, creating a cycle of reinforcement. It is crucial to scrutinize the methods by which these authors arrive at their conclusions. They may inadvertently exhibit allegiance bias by selectively testing previous articles against their own work and overstating the conclusions they draw. Ironically, these authors may be employing allegiance bias to affirm the accuracy of their own research findings.

{{Cite journal|last1=Leykin|first1=Yan|last2=DeRubeis|first2=Robert J.|date=2009-03-01|title=Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias|journal=Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice|language=en|volume=16|issue=1|pages=54–65|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x|issn=1468-2850}}

Despite the fact that researchers find the outcomes of psychological evaluations to be influenced from allegiance from a specific school of thought, the role of allegiance in the research field should be evaluated cautiously. Several meta-analyses have shown contradictory results between experimenter's allegiance (EA) and assessment effect sizes in favor of the preferred conclusions.{{Cite journal|last1=Dragioti|first1=Elena|last2=Dimoliatis|first2=Ioannis|last3=Fountoulakis|first3=Konstantinos N.|last4=Evangelou|first4=Evangelos|date=2015-09-15|title=A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy|journal=Annals of General Psychiatry|volume=14|issue=1 |pages=25|doi=10.1186/s12991-015-0063-1|issn=1744-859X|pmc=4570291|pmid=26379758 |doi-access=free }} These are meta-analysis that examines a combination of psychotherapy and non-psychotherapy treatments (e.g., medication) if it was directly compared with another type of psychotherapy or meta-analysis evaluating direct comparisons between different types of psychotherapy. Meta-analysis assessing non-verbal techniques, web-based treatments and non-specific or miscellaneous treatments (e.g., yoga, dietary advice, recreation, biofeedback, etc.) should also be excluded.

The analysis on direct comparisons did not address the quality of studies and neither did it have any significant association between allegiant and non-allegiant studies; whereas significant differences were observed in cases where treatment integrity was not evaluated.{{Cite journal|last1=Weisz|first1=John R.|last2=Jensen-Doss|first2=Amanda|last3=Hawley|first3=Kristin M.|title=Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons.|journal=American Psychologist|volume=61|issue=7|pages=671–689|doi=10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.671|pmid=17032068|year=2006|citeseerx=10.1.1.515.3764}}

{{Cite journal|last1=Wampold|first1=Bruce E.|last2=Budge|first2=Stephanie L.|last3=Laska|first3=Kevin M.|last4=Del Re|first4=A. C.|last5=Baardseth|first5=Timothy P.|last6=Fluckiger|first6=Christoph|last7=Minami|first7=Takuya|last8=Kivlighan|first8=D. Martin|last9=Gunn|first9=Wade|date=2011-12-01|title=Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons|journal=Clinical Psychology Review|volume=31|issue=8|pages=1304–1312|doi=10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.012|issn=1873-7811|pmid=21996291}}{{Cite journal|last1=Munder|first1=Thomas|last2=Gerger|first2=Heike|last3=Trelle|first3=Sven|last4=Barth|first4=Jürgen|date=2011-11-01|title=Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis|journal=Psychotherapy Research|volume=21|issue=6|pages=670–684|doi=10.1080/10503307.2011.602752|issn=1050-3307|pmid=21797736|s2cid=205711756}}{{Cite journal|last1=Munder|first1=Thomas|last2=Gerger|first2=Heike|last3=Trelle|first3=Sven|last4=Barth|first4=Jürgen|date=2011-11-01|title=Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis|journal=Psychotherapy Research|volume=21|issue=6|pages=670–684|doi=10.1080/10503307.2011.602752|issn=1468-4381|pmid=21797736|s2cid=205711756}}

In legal cases, evaluator attitudes and other attributes may systematically influence from whom evaluators are willing to accept a referral. Filtering and selection effects in adversarial settings have been assumed to exist, but with few empirical tests of the hypothesis to date.{{Cite journal|last1=Murrie|first1=Daniel C.|last2=Boccaccini|first2=Marcus T.|last3=Guarnera|first3=Lucy A.|last4=Rufino|first4=Katrina A.|date=2013-10-01|title=Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?|journal=Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=10|pages=1889–1897|doi=10.1177/0956797613481812|issn=1467-9280|pmid=23969777|s2cid=46521726}}{{Cite journal|last1=Murrie|first1=Daniel C.|last2=Boccaccini|first2=Marcus T.|last3=Guarnera|first3=Lucy A.|last4=Rufino|first4=Katrina A.|date=2013-08-22|title=Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?|journal=Psychological Science|language=en|volume=24|issue=10|pages=1889–1897|doi=10.1177/0956797613481812|pmid=23969777|s2cid=46521726}} Current studies demonstrate that these experts have preexisting biases that may affect for whom they are willing to work in the adversarial system–thus, likely amplifying the effects of the system-induced biases when layered with preexisting expert biases.

{{Cite journal|last1=Gaffan|first1=E. A.|last2=Tsaousis|first2=I.|last3=Kemp-Wheeler|first3=S. M.|date=1995-12-01|title=Researcher allegiance and meta-analysis: the case of cognitive therapy for depression|journal=Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology|volume=63|issue=6|pages=966–980|issn=0022-006X|pmid=8543719|doi=10.1037/0022-006X.63.6.966}}

• Creating a list - this would be the simplest method for a professional to hypothesize all/any possibilities that would seem reasonable, at the inception of an evaluation process.{{Cite web|url=http://www.apadivisions.org/division-41/publications/newsletters/news/2014/10/expert-opinion.aspx|title=Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations|website=APA Div. 41: American Psychology-Law Society|access-date=2017-03-31}}
• Surveillance{{Cite journal|last1=Robinson|first1=L. A.|last2=Berman|first2=J. S.|last3=Neimeyer|first3=R. A.|date=1990-07-01|title=Psychotherapy for the treatment of depression: a comprehensive review of controlled outcome research|journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=108|issue=1|pages=30–49|issn=0033-2909|pmid=2200072|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.108.1.30}}{{Cite journal|last1=Imel|first1=Zac E.|last2=Wampold|first2=Bruce E.|last3=Miller|first3=Scott D.|last4=Fleming|first4=Reg R.|date=2008-12-01|title=Distinctions without a difference: direct comparisons of psychotherapies for alcohol use disorders|journal=Psychology of Addictive Behaviors|volume=22|issue=4|pages=533–543|doi=10.1037/a0013171|issn=0893-164X|pmid=19071978}}

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.{{Cite journal|last1=Moher|first1=David|last2=Tetzlaff|first2=Jennifer|last3=Tricco|first3=Andrea C.|last4=Sampson|first4=Margaret|last5=Altman|first5=Douglas G.|date=2007-03-27|title=Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews|journal=PLOS Medicine|volume=4|issue=3|pages=e78|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078|issn=1549-1676|pmc=1831728|pmid=17388659 |doi-access=free }}

{{Main|QUOROM flow chart}}

Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported.{{Cite journal|last1=Moher|first1=D.|last2=Cook|first2=D. J.|last3=Eastwood|first3=S.|last4=Olkin|first4=I.|last5=Rennie|first5=D.|last6=Stroup|first6=D. F.|date=1999-11-27|title=Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses|journal=Lancet|volume=354|issue=9193|pages=1896–1900|issn=0140-6736|pmid=10584742|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5|s2cid=21826935}}

{{Main|Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses}}

Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of evaluations of health care interventions.{{Cite journal|last1=Wen|first1=Jin|last2=Ren|first2=Yu|last3=Wang|first3=Li|last4=Li|first4=Youping|last5=Liu|first5=Ya|last6=Zhou|first6=Min|last7=Liu|first7=Ping|last8=Ye|first8=Lu|last9=Li|first9=Yi|date=2008-08-01|title=The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study|journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|volume=61|issue=8|pages=770–775|doi=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008|issn=0895-4356|pmid=18411041}}{{Cite journal|url=http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(07)00376-9/abstract|title=The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study|journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|volume=61|issue=8|pages=770–775|doi=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008|pmid=18411041|year=2008|last1=Wen|first1=Jin|last2=Ren|first2=Yu|last3=Wang|first3=Li|last4=Li|first4=Youping|last5=Liu|first5=Ya|last6=Zhou|first6=Min|last7=Liu|first7=Ping|last8=Ye|first8=Lu|last9=Li|first9=Yi|last10=Tian|first10=Wei|url-access=subscription}}

The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, they have explained the meaning and rationale for each checklist item & have include an example of good reporting, while also where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.{{Cite journal|last1=Liberati|first1=Alessandro|last2=Altman|first2=Douglas G|last3=Tetzlaff|first3=Jennifer|last4=Mulrow|first4=Cynthia|last5=Gøtzsche|first5=Peter C|last6=Ioannidis|first6=John P A|last7=Clarke|first7=Mike|last8=Devereaux|first8=P J|last9=Kleijnen|first9=Jos|date=2009-07-21|title=The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration|journal=The BMJ|volume=339|issue=jul21 1 |pages=b2700|doi=10.1136/bmj.b2700|issn=0959-8138|pmc=2714672|pmid=19622552}}

{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Dennis F.|date=2009-01-01|title=The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine|journal=Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen|volume=103|issue=3|pages=136–140|issn=1865-9217|pmid=19554887|doi=10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.021|s2cid=7219269 |url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10384893|url-access=subscription}}{{Cite book|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22942/|title=Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice|author=((Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice))|date=2009-01-01|publisher=National Academies Press (US)|isbn=9780309131889|editor-last=Lo|editor-first=Bernard|series=The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health|location=Washington (DC)|pmid=20662118|editor-last2=Field|editor-first2=Marilyn J.}}

{{Cite journal|last=Maj|first=Mario|date=2008-08-01|title=Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice|journal=The British Journal of Psychiatry |volume=193|issue=2|pages=91–92|doi=10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361|issn=0007-1250|pmid=18669986|doi-access=free}}{{Cite journal|last=Maj|first=Mario|date=2008-08-01|title=Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice|journal=The British Journal of Psychiatry|language=en|volume=193|issue=2|pages=91–92|doi=10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361|issn=0007-1250|pmid=18669986|doi-access=free}}{{Cite journal|last1=Roseman|first1=Michelle|last2=Milette|first2=Katherine|last3=Bero|first3=Lisa A.|last4=Coyne|first4=James C.|last5=Lexchin|first5=Joel|last6=Turner|first6=Erick H.|last7=Thombs|first7=Brett D.|date=2011-03-09|title=Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments|journal=JAMA|volume=305|issue=10|pages=1008–1017|doi=10.1001/jama.2011.257|issn=1538-3598|pmid=21386079|url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/6759428/Roseman_2011_JAMA.pdf|hdl=11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797|s2cid=11270323 |hdl-access=free}}{{Cite journal|last=Roseman|first=Michelle|date=2011-03-09|title=Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments|journal=JAMA|language=en|volume=305|issue=10|pages=1008–17|doi=10.1001/jama.2011.257|pmid=21386079|issn=0098-7484|url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/6759428/Roseman_2011_JAMA.pdf|hdl=11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797|s2cid=11270323 |hdl-access=free}}{{Cite journal|last1=Lieb|first1=Klaus|last2=von der Osten-Sacken|first2=Jan|last3=Stoffers-Winterling|first3=Jutta|last4=Reiss|first4=Neele|last5=Barth|first5=Jürgen|date=2016-04-26|title=Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review|journal=BMJ Open|volume=6|issue=4|pages=e010606|doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606|issn=2044-6055|pmc=4853969|pmid=27118287}}

{{Portal|Psychology}}

• Bias
• Impartiality
• Empiricism
• Conformity

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{CC-notice|cc=by4|url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849669/}}
• {{CC-notice|cc=by4|url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570291/}}
• {{CC-notice|cc=by4|url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831728/}}

• [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ PRISMA statement - Who should use PRISMA?]
• [http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-016-0235-y Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials]
• [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735813000275 Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: An overview of reviews]
• [http://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-015-0032-0 A new era for intervention development studies]

{{Biases|state=expanded}}

{{conflict of interest|state=expanded}}

{{Philosophical logic|state=expanded}}

Category:Communication of falsehoods

Category:Prejudices

Category:Decision theory