2,715
Views
53
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Papers

Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven different sources of biasFootnote

Pages 541-547 | Received 03 Jan 2017, Accepted 05 Jan 2017, Published online: 28 Feb 2017

References

  • Dror IE, Stoel RD. Cognitive forensics: human cognition, contextual information, and bias. Encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York (NY): Springer Publishing New York; 2014.
  • Found B. Deciphering the human condition: the rise of cognitive forensics. Aust J For Sci. 2015;47(4):386–401.
  • Edmond G, Towler A, Growns B, Ribeiro G, Found B, White D, Ballantyne K, Searston RA, Thompson MB, Tangen JM, et al. Thinking forensics: cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Sci Justice. Forthcoming.
  • Dror IE. Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilising the human element. Philos Trans R Soc. 2015;370(1674): 20140255. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0255.
  • Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis. Latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach. National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR); 2012; 7842.
  • Forensic Science Regulator. Guidance: cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. 2015; FSR-G-217.
  • National Commission on Forensic Science. Ensuring that forensic analysis is based upon task-relevant information. Washington (DC). 2015. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/818196/download
  • Presidents’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington (DC). 2016. Available from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
  • National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2009.
  • Campbell A. The fingerprint inquiry. Scotland; 2011. Available from: http://www.aridgetoofar.com/documents/TheFingerprintInquiryReport_Low_res.pdf
  • Office of the Inspector General. A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Justice; 2006.
  • Dror IE. Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science. Forensic Sci Pol Manag. 2014;4:105–113.
  • Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, Risinger M. 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.
  • Dror IE. How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? the four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics. 2009;50:93–110.
  • Office of the Inspector General. A review of the FBI’s progress in responding to the recommendations in the office of the inspector general report on the fingerprint misidentification in the Brandon Mayfield case. Washington (DC); 2011. Available from: https://www.oig.justice.gov/special/s1105.pdf
  • Passalacqua NV, De La Paz J, Zejdlik K. Identification of missing Norwegian world war II soldiers. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61(5):1405–1407.10.1111/jfo.2016.61.issue-5
  • Lawless ST. Crying wolf: false alarms in a paediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:981–985.10.1097/00003246-199406000-00017
  • Schwaninger A. Threat image projection: enhancing performance? Aviation Security Inter. 2006; December:36–41.
  • Dror IE, Mnookin J. The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law, Probability and Risk. 2010;9(1):47–67.10.1093/lpr/mgp031
  • Dror IE, Wertheim K, Fraser-Mackenzie P, Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(2):343–352.10.1111/jfo.2012.57.issue-2
  • Murrie D, Boccaccini M, Guarnera L, Rufino K. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol Sci. 2013;24:1889–1897.10.1177/0956797613481812
  • Murrie D, Boccaccini M, Turner D, Meeks M, Woods C, Tussey C. Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2009;15:19–53.10.1037/a0014897
  • Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2016;5(2):121–127.10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.03.001
  • Thomas CM, Bertram E, Johnson D. The SBAR communication technique. Nurse Educator. 2009;34(4):176–180.10.1097/NNE.0b013e3181aaba54
  • Wacogne I, Diwakar V. Handover and note-keeping: the SBAR approach. Clin Risk. 2010;16(5):173–175.10.1258/cr.2010.010043

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.