Literature DB >> 19432737

Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons.

Glenn Langenburg1, Christophe Champod, Pat Wertheim.   

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess if fingerprint specialists could be influenced by extraneous contextual information during a verification process. Participants were separated into three groups: a control group (no contextual information was given), a low bias group (minimal contextual information was given in the form of a report prompting conclusions), and a high bias group (an internationally recognized fingerprint expert provided conclusions and case information to deceive this group into believing that it was his case and conclusions). A similar experiment was later conducted with laypersons. The results showed that fingerprint experts were influenced by contextual information during fingerprint comparisons, but not towards making errors. Instead, fingerprint experts under the biasing conditions provided significantly fewer definitive and erroneous conclusions than the control group. In contrast, the novice participants were more influenced by the bias conditions and did tend to make incorrect judgments, especially when prompted towards an incorrect response by the bias prompt.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19432737     DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  9 in total

1.  The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition.

Authors:  Itiel E Dror; Simon A Cole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-04

2.  Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions.

Authors:  Bradford T Ulery; R Austin Hicklin; Joann Buscaglia; Maria Antonia Roberts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report.

Authors:  Christophe Champod
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  The benefits of errors during training.

Authors:  Heidi Eldridge; Jon Stimac; John Vanderkolk
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2021-12-20

5.  Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners.

Authors:  Bradford T Ulery; R Austin Hicklin; JoAnn Buscaglia; Maria Antonia Roberts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Measuring what latent fingerprint examiners consider sufficient information for individualization determinations.

Authors:  Bradford T Ulery; R Austin Hicklin; Maria Antonia Roberts; JoAnn Buscaglia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  (Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science.

Authors:  Itiel E Dror; Nicholas Scurich
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  How to make better forensic decisions.

Authors:  Thomas D Albright
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 12.779

9.  People who live in ivory towers shouldn't throw stones: A refutation of Curley et al.

Authors:  Jeff Kukucka
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2020-03-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.