Legal psychologists as experts: guidelines for minimizing bias

References

• Aben, D. (2021). Mag het ook een onsje meer zijn? Bijdrage aan het symposium ‘vijftien jaar na het evaluatieonderzoek in de schiedammer parkmoord. Lessen van toen in de context van nu’ [May I have an extra ounce? Contribution to the symposium ‘fifteen years after the review investigation on the ‘schiedammer park’ murder. Lessons from the past in the current context]. Expertise en Recht, 1, 15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Almazrouei, M. A., Dror, I. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2019). The forensic disclosure model: What should be disclosed to, and by, forensic experts? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 59(100330), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.05.003
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anders, G. (2011). Testifying about ‘uncivilized events’: Problematic representations of Africa in the trial against charles taylor. Leiden Journal of International Law, 24(04), 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000446
   Google Scholar
• Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaard, G., Meijer, E. H., Vrij, A., Broers, N. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2014). Contextual bias in verbal credibility assessment: Criteria-based content analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brackmann, N., Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., & Jelicic, M. (2016). When children are the least vulnerable to false memories: A true report or a case of autosuggestion? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61(S1), S271–S275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12926
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broeders, A. P. A. (1996). Earwitness identification: Common ground, disputed territory and uncharted areas. Forensic Linguistics, 3(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Broeders, A. P. A. (2003). The role of the forensic expert in an inquisitorial system. In P. J. Van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 215–254). Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Bycroft, D., Dear, G. E., & Drake, D. (2019). Psychological reports for sentencing juveniles in Australian courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1506713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman, S. D., Carbone, J., Kekessie, S., & Villalba, D. K. (2016). Evidence evaluation and evidence integration in legal decision-making: Order of evidence presentation as a moderator of context effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3181
   Google Scholar
• Charman, S. D., Kavetski, M., & Hirn Mueller, D. H. (2017). Cognitive bias in the legal system: Police officers evaluate ambiguous evidence in a belief-consistent manner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman, S. D., & Quiroz, V. (2016). Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000197
   Google Scholar
• Chorn, J. A., & Kovera, M. B. (2019). Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612439584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Combs, N. A. (2017). Grave crimes and weak evidence: A fact-finding evolution in international criminal law. Harvard International Law Journal, 58(1), 47-125.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065858
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conroy, M. A. (2006). Reporting writing and testimony. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 237–260. http://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/apcj/2_3_Reports_Testimony.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Conway, M. A. (2013). On being a memory expert witness: Three cases. Memory (Hove, England), 21(5), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.794241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crombag, H. F. M., Van Koppen, P. J., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1992). Dubieuze zaken: De psychologie van strafrechtelijk bewijs [Questionable cases: The psychology of criminal evidence] (4th ed.). Uitgeverij Contact.
   Google Scholar
• Crombag, H. F. M., & Wagenaar, W. A. (2000). Audite et alteram partem. Trema, 23, 93–96.
   Google Scholar
• Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), ii65–ii72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2010). Evaluating eyewitness identification. Oxford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-00312-000
   Google Scholar
• Da Silva Guerreiro, J., Casoni, D., & Costa Santos, J. (2014). Relevance and coherence as measures of quality in forensic psychological reports. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(6), 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.918077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R. C., Jensen, C. J., Burgette, L., & Burnett, K. (2014). Working smarter on cold cases: Identifying factors associated with successful cold case investigations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(2), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12384
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Day, A., White, J., Howells, K., Whitford, H., O'Brien, K., & Chartres, D. (2000). The uses of court-ordered psychiatric and psychological reports in south Australian magistrates’ courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7(2), 254–263, https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710009524992
   Google Scholar
• De Keijser, J. W., Malsch, M., Luining, E. T., Weulen Kranenbarg, M., & Lenssen, D. J. H. M. (2016). Differential reporting of mixed DNA profiles and its impact on jurists’ evaluation of evidence: An international analysis. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 23, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.03.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doyle, D. J., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2011). An analysis of dangerous sexual offender assessment reports: Recommendations for best practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2010.499159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science, 360(6386), 243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92(12), 7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600–616.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51(4), 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2021). Linear sequential unmasking–expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3(100161), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Melinek, J., Arden, J. L., Kukucka, J., Hawkins, S., Carter, J., & Atherton, D. S. (2021). Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(5), 1751–1757. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M. J., & Risinger, M. (2015). Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edens, J. F., Cox, J., Smith, S. T., DeMatteo, D., & Sörman, K. (2015). How reliable are psychopathy checklist–revised scores in Canadian criminal trials? A case law review. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldyne, A. J. (2007). Minimizing the influence of unconscious bias in evaluations: A practical guide. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 35(1), 60–66. http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/35/1/60.full.pdf
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Dhami, M. K. (2013). A forensic examination of court reports. Australian Psychologist, 48(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00082.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. D., Libkuman, T. M., & Poole, D. A. (1998). Repressed memories: The effects of expert testimony on mock jurors’ decision making. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(1), 5–23. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-00223-001
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, R. L. (2019). Forensic confirmation bias: Is consider-the-opposite an effective debiasing strategy? Washburn University.
   Google Scholar
• Gumpert, C. H., & Lindblad, F. (2000). Expert testimony on child sexual abuse: A qualitative study of the Swedish approach to statement analysis. Expert Evidence, 7(4), 279–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016657130623
   Google Scholar
• Gumpert, C. H., & Lindblad, F. (2001). Communication between courts and expert witnesses in legal proceedings concerning child sexual abuse in Sweden: A case review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(11), 1497–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00289-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gumpert, C. H., Lindblad, F., & Grann, M. (2002a). The quality of written expert testimony in alleged child sexual abuse: An empirical study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160208401810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumpert, C. H., Lindblad, F., & Grann, M. (2002b). A systematic approach to quality assessment of expert testimony in cases of alleged child sexual abuse. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160208401809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herlihy, J., Jobson, L., & Turner, S. (2012). Just tell US what happened to you: Autobiographical memory and seeking asylum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Ireland, J. L. (2012). Evaluating expert witness psychological reports: Exploring quality. University of Central Lancashire.
   Google Scholar
• Jelalian, E., & Miller, A. G. (1984). The perseverance of beliefs: Conceptual perspectives and research developments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1984.2.1.25
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. HarperCollins Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549809600384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., & Dror, I. E. (2022). Human factors in forensic science: Psychological causes of bias and error. In D. DeMatteo, & K. C. Scherr (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and Law. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., Dror, I. E., Yu, M., Hall, L., & Morgan, R. M. (2020). The impact of evidence lineups on fingerprint expert decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3703
   Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd, C. D., Clark, H. J., & Forth, A. E. (2010). Psychopathy, expert testimony, and indeterminate sentences: Exploring the relationship between psychopathy checklist-revised testimony and trial outcome in Canada. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X468432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lynch, M. (2003). God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour, 27(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00068-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Arter, J. L. (2016). Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merckelbach, H. L. G. J. (2016). Deskundigen in het traject naar herziening [experts on the path to revision]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 25, 1761–1766.
   Google Scholar
• Moulton, C. A., Regehr, G., Lingard, L., Merritt, C., & MacRae, H. (2010). Slowing down to stay out of trouble in the operating room: Remaining attentive in automaticity. Academic Medicine, 85(10), 1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f073dd
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714
   Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. The National Academies Press. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Neal, T. (2018). Forensic psychology and correctional psychology: Distinct but related subfields of psychological science and practice. American Psychologist, 73(5), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netherlands Register of Court Experts. (2015). NRGD Code of Conduct Version 2.0. https://english.nrgd.nl/binaries/NRGD%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20version%202.0_tcm40-88813.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Netherlands Register of Court Experts. (2020). Standards Legal Psychology (009.0). https://www.nrgd.nl/binaries/Standards%20Legal%20Psychology%202.0%20def_tcm39-421076.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J. O. (2006). Quantifying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: A comment on three comments. Law, Probability and Risk, 5(3-4), 267–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgm010
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson, R. A., & Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005422702678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nierop, N. M., Van den Eshof, P., & Brandt, C. (2006). De beoordeling van geloofwaardigheid in zedenzaken: Theorie en praktijk [The assessment of credibility in sex offender cases: Theory and practice]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 43, 2456–2464.
   Google Scholar
• Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otgaar, H., Arbiyah, N., & Mangiulli, I. (2020). The toolbox of memory experts working as expert witnesses. In R. Horselenberg, V. Van Koppen, & J. De Keijser (Eds.), Bakens in de rechtspsychologie: Liber amicorum voor peter van koppen (pp. 477–488). Boom criminologie.
   Google Scholar
• Otgaar, H., de Ruiter, C., Howe, M. L., Hoetmer, L., & van Reekum, P. (2017). A case concerning children's false memories of abuse: Recommendations regarding expert witness work. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1230924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Keagan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1980). The logic of scientific discovery (10th ed.) Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 565–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. G. C. (2001). Het bepalen van geloofwaardigheid: De methode van de alternatieve scenario's [assessing credibility: The method of alternative scenarios]. De Psycholoog, 36, 348–355.
   Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. G. C. (2014). Het beoordelen van de validiteit van (getuigen)-verklaringen met de methode van de alternatieve scenario’s; Een update [assessing the validity of (witness) statements using the alternative scenario method; an update]. Expertise & Recht, 4, 119–123.
   Google Scholar
• Rassin, E. G. C. (2018). Reducing tunnel vision with a pen-and-paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 15(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, C. T., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2016). Blinding as a solution to bias: Strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, D. N., & Berry, M. A. (2016). Sensitizing potential jurors to variations in eyewitness evidence quality using counterfactual thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3233
   Google Scholar
• Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J. (1990). Expert witnesses, nonexpert witnesses, and nonwitness experts. Law and Human Behavior, 14(4), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020). Allegiance bias in statement reliability evaluations is not eliminated by falsification instructions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228(3), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000416
   Google Scholar
• Schimmel, L. M. C., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Verdachten testen: Testgebruik in de forensische psychologie [testing suspects: Use of tests in forensic psychology]. De Psycholoog, 52(10), 34–42. https://www.tijdschriftdepsycholoog.nl/wetenschap/verdachten-testen/
   Google Scholar
• Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searston, R. A., Tangen, J. M., & Eva, K. W. (2016). Putting bias into context: The role of familiarity in identification. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000154
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shura, R. D., Ord, A. S., & Worthen, M. D. (2022). Structured inventory of malingered symptomatology: A psychometric review. Psychological Injury and Law, 15(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09432-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smalarz, L., Madon, S., Yang, Y., Guyll, M., & Buck, S. (2016). The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis? Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. M., Mackovichova, S., Jalava, S. T., & Pozzulo, J. (2020). Fair forensic-object lineups are superior to forensic-object showups. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Dysart, J., & Fulero, S. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025438223608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillers, P., & Gottfried, J. (2006). Case comment–United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A collateral attack on the legal maxim that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is unquantifiable? Law, Probability and Risk, 5(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgl015
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Impelen, A., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Merten, T. (2014). The structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(8), 1336–1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.984763
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Het deskundigenbewijs van de rechtspsycholoog [expert evidence by the legal psychologist]. In P. J. Van Koppen, J. W. De Keijser, R. Horselenberg, & M. Jelicic (Eds.), Routes van het recht: Over de rechtspsychologie (pp. 439–459). Boom Juridisch.
   Google Scholar
• Van Koppen, P. J. (2022). De som van alle bewijs: Scenario’s in strafzaken. De Kring.
   Google Scholar
• Van Koppen, P. J., & Mackor, A. R. (2020). A scenario approach to the simonshaven case. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1132–1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12429
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., Otgaar, H. P., Merckelbach, H. L. G. J., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Het rechtspsychologische deskundigenrapport [The legal psychological expert witness report]. Expertise & Recht, 6, 243–247.
   Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., Van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_10
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2015). Verbal lie detection tools: Statement validity analysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 3–35). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Weiner, I. B. (2013). Writing forensic reports. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 711–732). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajac, R., Garry, M., London, K., Goodyear-Smith, F., & Hayne, H. (2013). Misconceptions about childhood sexual abuse and child witnesses: Implications for psychological experts in the courtroom. Memory (Hove, England), 21(5), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.778287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar