Literature DB >> 28284440

Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners.

Gary Edmond1, Alice Towler2, Bethany Growns3, Gianni Ribeiro4, Bryan Found5, David White6, Kaye Ballantyne7, Rachel A Searston8, Matthew B Thompson9, Jason M Tangen10, Richard I Kemp11, Kristy Martire12.   

Abstract

Human factors and their implications for forensic science have attracted increasing levels of interest across criminal justice communities in recent years. Initial interest centred on cognitive biases, but has since expanded such that knowledge from psychology and cognitive science is slowly infiltrating forensic practices more broadly. This article highlights a series of important findings and insights of relevance to forensic practitioners. These include research on human perception, memory, context information, expertise, decision-making, communication, experience, verification, confidence, and feedback. The aim of this article is to sensitise forensic practitioners (and lawyers and judges) to a range of potentially significant issues, and encourage them to engage with research in these domains so that they may adapt procedures to improve performance, mitigate risks and reduce errors. Doing so will reduce the divide between forensic practitioners and research scientists as well as improve the value and utility of forensic science evidence.
Copyright © 2016 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Experience; Expert; Human factors; Performance; Psychology; Training

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28284440     DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005

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


  10 in total

1.  The opacity myth: A response to Swofford & Champod (2022).

Authors:  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison; Nabanita Basu; Ewald Enzinger; Philip Weber
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2022-06-19

2.  Challenges to reasoning in forensic science decisions.

Authors:  Barbara A Spellman; Heidi Eldridge; Paul Bieber
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2021-12-20

Review 3.  Advancing a paradigm shift in evaluation of forensic evidence: The rise of forensic data science.

Authors:  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2022-05-18

4.  Expertise with unfamiliar objects is flexible to changes in task but not changes in class.

Authors:  Rachel A Searston; Jason M Tangen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Do professional facial image comparison training courses work?

Authors:  Alice Towler; Richard I Kemp; A Mike Burton; James D Dunn; Tanya Wayne; Reuben Moreton; David White
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Commentary on: Hak. Evaluation of the Forensic Science Regulator's recommendations regarding image comparison evidence. Forensic science international: Synergy 2019; 1(1).

Authors:  Gillian Tully; Michael Stockdale
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2019-09-28

Review 7.  Human factors in forensic science: The cognitive mechanisms that underlie forensic feature-comparison expertise.

Authors:  Bethany Growns; Kristy A Martire
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2020-05-21

8.  The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices.

Authors:  Bethany Growns; James D Dunn; Rebecca K Helm; Alice Towler; Jeff Kukucka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 3.752

9.  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

10.  Forensic epistemology: A need for research and pedagogy.

Authors:  Mike Illes; Paul Wilson; Cathy Bruce
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2019-12-13
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.