دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.
المؤلفون: Pena MM; Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA., Stoiloff S; Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA., Sparacino M; Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA., Schreiber Compo N; Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
المصدر: Journal of forensic sciences [J Forensic Sci] 2024 Sep; Vol. 69 (5), pp. 1740-1757. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 26.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Blackwell Pub Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0375370 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1556-4029 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00221198 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Forensic Sci Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 2006- : Malden, MA : Blackwell Pub.
Original Publication: [Chicago, Ill.] : Callaghan and Co., 1956-
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Dermatoglyphics* , Forensic Sciences* , Professional Competence*, Humans ; Female ; Male ; Bias ; Students ; Adult ; Young Adult
مستخلص: Forensic examiners have come under scrutiny due to high-profile exonerations, highlighting the consequences that contextual bias can have on investigations. Researchers have proposed solutions to reduce the effects of bias including blind testing and redacting task-irrelevant information. Practitioners have concerns over the limitations of some of this research that uses untrained students to examine complex pieces of forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints) (1; but see 2 for studies including trained experts and/or actual casework). This study sought to (a) examine the effect of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of forensic evidence by varying the amount of pre-comparison information available to participants, (b) compare student and expert examiners' performance and their vulnerability to contextual bias, and (c) examine the effects of contextual bias on examiners' evaluation of different types of forensic evidence. Expert fingerprint examiners and student participants were presented with varying amounts of pre-comparison case information and compared matching and non-matching fingerprint and footwear impression evidence. Results suggest no effects of blinding examiners from case information or redacting task-irrelevant information. As expected, expert fingerprint examiners were more likely to correctly identify matching fingerprints and correctly exclude non-matching fingerprints than students. However, expert fingerprint examiners were no better than student participants at comparing footwear impression evidence. These findings suggest that sample, stimulus selection, and discipline-specific training matter when investigating bias in forensic decision making. These findings suggest caution when using forensic stimuli with student samples to investigate forensic decision-making and highlight the need for more research on redaction procedures.
(© 2024 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)
References: Garrett BL. Autopsy of a crime lab: exposing the flaws in forensics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2022. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1h9dkjv.
Mnookin JL, Cole SA, Dror IE, Fisher BAJ, Houck MM, Inman K, et al. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Rev. 2011;58(3):725–780. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1755722.
The National Registry of Exonerations. Exoneration registry. Umich.edu. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx. Accessed 26 Mar 2023.
Morgan J. Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence. J Forensic Sci. 2023;68(3):908–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.15233.
Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.
Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol. 1998;2(2):175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089‐2680.2.2.17.
Rosenthal R, Fode KL. The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behav Sci. 1963;8(3):183–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830080302.
Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Anal Chem. 2020;92(12):7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704.
Spellman BA, Eldridge H, Bieber P. Challenges to reasoning in forensic science decisions. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021;4:100200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100200.
Kukucka J, Dror IE. Human factors in forensic science: psychological causes of bias and error. In: DeMatteo D, Scherr K, editors. The Oxford handbook of psychology and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.36.
Edmond G, Tangen JM, Searston RA, Dror IE. Contextual bias and cross‐contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law Probab Risk. 2014;14(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018.
Lange ND, Thomas RP, Dana J, Dawes RM. Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law Hum Behav. 2011;35(3):178–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979‐010‐9226‐4.
Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004.
Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S‐L, Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19(6):799–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130.
Kukucka J, Kassin SM. Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law Hum Behav. 2014;38(3):256–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066.
Mattijssen EJAT, Witteman CLM, Berger CEH, Stoel RD. Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: a field study. Sci Justice. 2020;60(4):337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005.
Oliver WR. Effect of history and context on forensic pathologist interpretation of photographs of patterned injury of the skin. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(6):1500–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13449.
Dror IE, Scherr KC, Mohammed LA, MacLean Carla L, Cunningham L. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;318:110610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110610.
Dror IE, Wolf DA, Phillips G, Gao S, Yang Y, Drake SA. Contextual information in medicolegal death investigation decision‐making: manner of death determination for cases of a single gunshot wound. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022;5:100285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100285.
Sunde N, Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making. Forensic Sci Int: Digit Investig. 2021;37:301175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301175.
Charman SD, Kavetski M, Mueller DH. Cognitive bias in the legal system: Police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief‐consistent manner. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2017;6(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001.
Dror IE, Morgan RM, Rando C, Nakhaeizadeh S. Letter to the editor—The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(3):832–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13496.
Kassin SM. Why confessions trump innocence. Am Psychol. 2012;67(6):431–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028212.
Dror IE, Kukucka J. Linear sequential unmasking–expanded (LSU‐E): a general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021;3:100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161.
Dror IE, Pierce ML. ISO standards addressing issues of bias and impartiality in forensic work. J Forensic Sci. 2019;65(3):800–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.14265.
National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
Cole SA. Implementing counter‐measures against confirmation bias in forensic science. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):61–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.011.
Edmond G, Towler A, Growns B, Ribeiro G, Found B, White D, et al. Thinking forensics: cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Sci Justice. 2017;57(2):144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005.
Mattijssen EJAT, Kerkhoff W, Berger CEH, Dror IE, Stoel RD. Implementing context information management in forensic casework: minimizing contextual bias in firearms examination. Sci Justice. 2016;56(2):113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.11.004.
Risinger DMM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev. 2002;90:901–956. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481305.
Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Sci Justice. 2003;43(2):77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355‐0306(03)7147‐X.
Thompson WC. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust J Forensic Sci. 2011;43(2–3):123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2010.541499.
Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med. 1998;72(3):389–433. https://doi.org/10.1353/bhm.1998.0159.
Rosenthal R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton‐Century‐Crofts; 1966.
Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, et al. Letter to the Editor—Context management toolbox: a linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(4):1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.12805.
Quigley‐McBride A, Dror IE, Roy T, Garrett BL, Kukucka J. A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: using linear sequential unmasking‐expanded (LSU‐E) in casework. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022;4:100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100216.
Archer MS, Wallman JF. Context effects in forensic entomology and use of sequential unmasking in casework. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61(5):1270–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13139.
Found B, Ganas J. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci Justice. 2013;53(2):154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijust.2012.10.004.
Cooper GS, Meterko V. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;297(1):35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016.
Ostrum B. Commentary on: Authors' response [J Forensic Sci 2009;54(2):501] to Wells' comments [J Forensic Sci 2009;54(2):500] regarding Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfield IL, Risinger DM, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(6):1498–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2009.01191.x.
Langenburg G, Champod C, Wertheim P. Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE‐V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(3):571–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2009.01025.x.
Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;156(1):74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.
Butt L. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions – commentary by a forensic examiner. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):59–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.012.
van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. The forensic confirmation bias: a comparison between experts and novices. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64(1):120–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.13817.
Thornton JI. Letter to the Editor—A rejection of “working blind” as a cure for contextual bias. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(6):1663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556‐4029.2010.01497.x.
Charlton D. Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination? Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency? J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):71–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/jarmac.2013.01.009.
Langenburg G. Addressing potential observer effects in forensic science: a perspective from a forensic scientist who uses linear sequential unmasking techniques. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49(5):548–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2016.1259433.
Kerstholt JH, Paashuis R, Sjerps M. Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165(1):30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.039.
Kerstholt J, Eikelboom A, Dijkman T, Stoel R, Hermsen R, van Leuven B. Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons? Forensic Sci Int. 2010;198(1–3):138–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.007.
Stevenage SV, Bennett A. A biased opinion: demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;276:93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009.
Inman K, Rudin N. Sequential unmasking: minimizing observer effects in forensic science. In: Siegel JA, Saukko PJ, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2013. p. 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐382165‐2.00286‐5.
Merlino ML. Validity, reliability, accuracy, and bias in forensic signature identification. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2014. Report No: 2010‐DN‐BX‐K271.
Osborne NKP, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Sci Justice. 2014;54:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005.
Pacheco I, Cerchiai B, Stoiloff S. Miami‐Dade research study for the reliability of the ACE‐V process: accuracy & precision in latent fingerprint examinations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2014.
Sneyd D, Schreiber Compo N, Rivard J, Pena M, Stoiloff S, Hernandez G. Quality of laypersons' assessment of forensically relevant stimuli. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(5):1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556‐4029.14495.
Dror IE, Scurich N. (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020;2:333–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.006.
Smalarz L, Madon S, Yang Y, Guyll M, Buck S. The perfect match: do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis? Law Hum Behav. 2016;40(4):420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000190.
Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif. 2006;56:600–616.
Gardner BO, Kelley S, Murrie DC, Blaisdell KN. Do evidence submission forms expose latent print examiners to task‐irrelevant information. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;297:236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.048.
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: cognitive bias; contextual bias; decision making; expert examiners; fingerprint evidence; novice examiners
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20240626 Date Completed: 20240903 Latest Revision: 20240903
رمز التحديث: 20240903
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.15565
PMID: 38922874
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1556-4029
DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.15565