Cognitive bias and the order of examination in forensic anthropological non-metric methods: a pilot study

References

• Morgan RM. Conceptualising forensic science and forensic reconstruction. Part I: a conceptual model. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2017;57(6):455–459. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earwaker H, Nakhaeizadeh S, Smit NM, Morgan RM. A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: a six phased approach. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2020;60(1):9–19. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camilleri A, Abarno D, Bird C, Coxon A, Mitchell N, Redman K, Sly N, Wills S, Silenieks E, Simpson E, et al. A risk-based approach to cognitive bias in forensic science. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2019;59(5):533–543. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE. Human expert performance in forensic decision making: seven different sources of bias. Aust J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2017;49(5):541–547. doi:10.1080/00450618.2017.1281348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper GS, Meterko V. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic Sci Int [ Internet]. 2019;297:35–46.doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 [ Internet]. 2017;57(2):144–154. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meer CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, Risinger M. Letter to the editor- context management toolbox: a Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2015;60(4):1111–1112. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2011;51(4):204–208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int [ Internet]. 2006;156(1):74–78. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser-Mackenzie DIE, Wertheim K. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2013;53(2):144–153. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 [ Internet]. 2017;276:93–106.doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. Forensic expectations: investigating a crime scene with prior information. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2016;56(6):475–481. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. The forensic confirmation bias: a comparison between experts and novices. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2019;64(1):120–126. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror I, Melinek J, Arden JL, Kukucka J, Hawkins S, Carter J, Carter J. Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2021:1556–4029.14697. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.14697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor MC, Laber TL, Kish PE, Owens G, Osborne NKP. The reliability of pattern classification in bloodstain pattern analysis, part 1: bloodstain patterns on rigid non-absorbent surfaces. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2016;61(4):922–927. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor MC, Laber TL, Kish PE, Owens G, Osborne NKP. The reliability of pattern classification in bloodstain pattern analysis - PART 2: bloodstain patterns on fabric surfaces. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2016;61(6):1461–1466. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukucka J, Kassin SM. Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law Hum Behav [ Internet]. 2014;38(3):256–270. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/lhb0000066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange ND, Thomas RP, Dana J, Dawes RM. Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law Hum Behav [ Internet]. 2011;35(3):178–187. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 [ Internet]. 2020;60(4):337–346. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klales AR, Lesciotto KM. The “science of science”: examining bias in forensic anthropology. 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2016; Las Vegas, NV. p. 188.
   Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh S, Dror IE, Morgan RM. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2014;54(3):208–214. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh S, Morgan RM, Rando C, Dror IE. Cascading bias of initial exposure to information at the crime scene to the subsequent evaluation of skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2017;63(2):403–411. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.13569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh S, Hanson I, Dozzi N. The power of contextual effects in forensic anthropology: a study of biasability in the visual interpretations of trauma analysis on skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2014;59(5):1177–1183. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chief Scientific Adviser. Annual report of the government chief scientific adviser 2015: forensic science and beyond: authenticity, provenance and assurance. Evidence and case studies. 2015. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-and-beyond
   Google Scholar
• Forensic Science Regulator. Cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. 2020;( 2). Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914259/217_FSR-G-217_Cognitive_bias_appendix_Issue_2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Forensic Science - Human Factors Subcommittee. Ensuring that forensic analysis is based upon task-relevant information. 2015:1–7. Available from: message:%3CD2E2A422.10AE9%[email protected]%3E%5Cnpapers3://publication/uuid/EBA9B395-2A88-4558-99FF-541738CBFE27
   Google Scholar
• AAFS Standards Board. Standard 090, standards for sex estimation in forensic anthropology. 2019. Available from: www.asbstandardsboard.org
   Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh S, Morgan RM, Olsson V, Arvidsson M, Thompson T. The value of eye-tracking technology in the analysis and interpretations of skeletal remains: a pilot study. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2020;60(1):36–42. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE, Pierce ML. ISO standards addressing issues of bias and impartiality in forensic work. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2020;65(3):800–808. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Found B. Deciphering the human condition: the rise of cognitive forensics. Aust J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2015;47(4):386–401. doi:10.1080/00450618.2014.965204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce M, Pinto D. Assessing cognitive bias, method validation, and equipment performance for the forensic anthropology laboratory. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• PCAST. Report to the president: forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington D.C: Executive Office of the President. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; 2016 Sep. p. 1–174.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Science and Technology Select Committee. Forensic science and the criminal justice system: a blueprint for change [ Internet]. 2019 Apr. p. 5. 3rd Report of Session 2017–19. Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-
   Google Scholar
• Morgan RM, Nakhaeizadeh S, Rando C, Dror IE. Authors’ response on research into contextual influences and forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2018;63(5):1598–1600. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cognit [ Internet]. 2013;2(1):42–52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf PA, Dror IE. Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. Int J Forensic Ment Health [ Internet]. 2017;16(3):227–238. doi:10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klales AR. Current practices in physical anthropology for sex estimation in unidentified, adult individuals. Am J Phys Anthropol [ Internet]. 2013;96(3):74. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9505103034&lang=es&site=ehost-live
   Google Scholar
• Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH, editors. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History, Organized by Jonathan Haas, Third Printing; Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Listi GA, Elizabeth Bassett H. Test of an alternative method for determining sex from the os coxae: applications for modern Americans. J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2006;51(2):248–252. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00080.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker PL. Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. Am J Phys Anthropol [ Internet]. 2008;136(1):39–50. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoel RD, Dror IE, Miller LS. Bias among forensic document examiners: still a need for procedural changes. Aust J Forensic Sci [ Internet]. 2014;46(1):91–97. doi:10.1080/00450618.2013.797026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror IE. The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong. In: Narinder Kapur, editor The paradoxical brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 177–188.
   Google Scholar
• Warren MW, Friend AN, Stock MK. Navigating cognitive bias in forensic anthropology. In: Boyd CJ, Boyd D, editors. Forensic anthropology: theoretical and scientific basis [ Internet]. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2018. p. 39–51. doi:10.1002/9781119226529.ch3
   Google Scholar
• 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 [ Internet]. 2017;62(3):832–833. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne NKP, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2014;54(4):267–273. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke AS. Improving prosecutorial decision making: some lessons of cognitive science. William Mary Law Rev. 2006;45(5):1587–1633.
   Google Scholar
• Klales AR. Sex estimation using pelvis morphology. In: Klales AR, editor. Sex estimation of the human skeleton: history, methods, and emerging techniques. London: Elsevier; 2020. p. 75–93.
   Google Scholar
• Bruzek J. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. Am J Phys Anthropol [ Internet]. 2002;117(2):157–168. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Pryzbeck TR, Mensforth RP. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. Am J Phys Anthropol [ Internet]. 1985;68(1):15–28. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchey JM, Brooks S. 1990. Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: a comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Hum Evol. 5:227–238. doi:10.1007/BF02437238
   Google Scholar
• IBM SPSS. Statistics for Macintosh. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Brothwell DR. Demographic aspects of skeletal biology. In: Digging up bones. 3rd ed. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press; 1981. p. 59–75.
   Google Scholar
• Berg GE. Determining the sex of unknown human skeletal remains. In: Tersigni-Tarrant MA, Shirley NR, editors Forensic anthropology: an introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013. p. 139–159.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Found B, Ganas J. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2013 June;53(2):154–158. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan RM. Conceptualising forensic science and forensic reconstruction. Part II: the critical interaction between research, policy/law and practice. Sci Justice [ Internet]. 2017;57(6):460–467. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar