The Beginning of the Problem

Decision making is the heart of the institutions, professions, processes, procedures, and practices that make up the way we respond to allegations of child sexual abuse. Decisions are made at varying levels of complexity and structure throughout the process, ranging from the first decisions made in responding to initial information that may suggest the possibility of abuse to the final adjudication where a person is found guilty or not guilty, or it is determined that abuse happened or didn't happen. Decisions are made about seeking help, whom to blame, calling authorities, what information to pursue in investigation, whom and what to charge or allege, the weight and importance to be given to hints, cues, or actions, and whether to accept a plea bargain, hire an attorney, or seek a different judge. These judgments are difficult, complex, and have far-reaching consequences.

The judgment tasks include descriptions of people, situations, possible events, decisions about what causes what and thus generates problems, and making predictions about possible outcomes. A psychologist may make a decision to accept or not accept a mother's claim that, when she was bathing her daughter after her return from an overnight visit with the father, who she knows was abused as a child, she noticed redness in the vaginal area, asked a simple, non leading question, and the daughter said to her, "Daddy did it!" She may then recommend sexual abuse play therapy for the child. She may make a prediction as to outcomes and advise the mother on whether to send the daughter on the weekly Wednesday evening visitation.

Errors may occur at any place in the chain. They may include:

· Error in description (redness was present when it was not).

· Error in assessing covariation (redness means abuse when it does not).

· Error in assuming causal relationships (being abused as a child causes adults to abuse their own children).

· Error in prediction (insight-oriented, feeling-expressive play therapy benefits a sexually abused child. Given the abuse is true, such therapy has no demonstrated efficacy. If not true, it likely causes harm to the child).

It is the quality of thinking that leads to accuracy or error. It is the very nature of the decision-making process that there are many sources of error. There may be a lack of information or mistaken information. There may be ignorance or information that is not used. There may be lack of understanding of social influence and interpersonal context. Errors may occur because of personal characteristics of the decision maker (i.e., intolerance of ambiguity, ambition, need for approval, anger and rage).

Decision theory research shows conclusively that the human mind does not process information very well (Meehl, 1993). Even in relatively simple, straightforward decisions involving a limited number of factors but requiring thoughtful choices, we resort to short cuts or heuristics, biases, many of which produce errors (Arkes, 1989; Crocker, 1981; Dawes, 1988; Einhorn and Hogarth, 1978; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Turk and Salovey, 1985). It is simply the case that rational thought using a $3.95 calculator to add up empirically derived weights does far better than our brilliant intuitive, insightful, and creative subjective hunches or certainties (Dawes et al., 1989). The importance of decision theory research and the demonstration of the error-producing biases is dealt with in more detail elsewhere in these volumes. In this chapter, when we are discussing behaviors or procedures which demonstrate one or the other of the biases discovered by decision theory research, we will briefly identify it.