Literature DB >> 24796950

Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias.

Sherry Nakhaeizadeh1, Itiel E Dror2, Ruth M Morgan3.   

Abstract

An experimental study was designed to examine cognitive biases within forensic anthropological non-metric methods in assessing sex, ancestry and age at death. To investigate examiner interpretation, forty-one non-novice participants were semi randomly divided into three groups. Prior to conducting the assessment of the skeletal remains, two of the groups were given different extraneous contextual information regarding the sex, ancestry and age at death of the individual. The third group acted as a control group with no extraneous contextual information. The experiment was designed to investigate if the interpretation and conclusions of the skeletal remains would differ amongst participants within the three groups, and to assess whether the examiners would confirm or disagree with the given extraneous context when establishing a biological profile. The results revealed a significant biasing effect within the three groups, demonstrating a strong confirmation bias in the assessment of sex, ancestry and age at death. In assessment of sex, 31% of the participants in the control group concluded that the skeleton remains were male. In contrast, in the group that received contextual information that the remains were male, 72% concluded that the remains were male, and in the participant group where the context was that the remains were of a female, 0% of the participants concluded that the remains were male. Comparable results showing bias were found in assessing ancestry and age at death. These data demonstrate that cognitive bias can impact forensic anthropological non-metric methods on skeletal remains and affects the interpretation and conclusions of the forensic scientists. This empirical study is a step in establishing an evidence base approach for dealing with cognitive issues in forensic anthropological assessments, so as to enhance this valuable forensic science discipline.
Copyright © 2013 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive bias; Cognitive forensic; Decision-making; Forensic anthropology; Forensic science

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24796950     DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Justice        ISSN: 1355-0306            Impact factor:   2.124


  9 in total

1.  CT evaluation of timing for ossification of the medial clavicular epiphysis in a contemporary Western Australian population.

Authors:  Daniel Franklin; Ambika Flavel
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  Use of pattern recognition and neural networks for non-metric sex diagnosis from lateral shape of calvarium: an innovative model for computer-aided diagnosis in forensic and physical anthropology.

Authors:  Fabio Cavalli; Luca Lusnig; Edmondo Trentin
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Radiocarbon test for demographic events in written and oral history.

Authors:  Kevan Edinborough; Marko Porčić; Andrew Martindale; Thomas Jay Brown; Kisha Supernant; Kenneth M Ames
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element.

Authors:  Itiel E Dror
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Testing the reliability of hands and ears as biometrics: the importance of viewpoint.

Authors:  Sarah V Stevenage; Catherine Walpole; Greg J Neil; Sue M Black
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-11-20

6.  The effect of different imaging techniques for the visualisation of evidence in court on jury comprehension.

Authors:  D Errickson; H Fawcett; T J U Thompson; A Campbell
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.686

7.  The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.

Authors:  Hilary J Hamnett; Itiel E Dror
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  Using Bayesian networks to guide the assessment of new evidence in an appeal case.

Authors:  Nadine M Smit; David A Lagnado; Ruth M Morgan; Norman E Fenton
Journal:  Crime Sci       Date:  2016-05-25

Review 9.  Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods.

Authors:  Alaa Althubaiti
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2016-05-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.