Literature DB >> 30769302

Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review.

Glinda S Cooper1, Vanessa Meterko2.   

Abstract

The extent to which cognitive biases may influence decision-making in forensic science is an important question with implications for training and practice. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cognitive biases in forensic science disciplines. The initial literature search including electronic searching of three databases (two social science, one science) and manual review of reference lists in identified articles. An initial screening of title and abstract by two independent reviewers followed by full text review resulted in the identification of 29 primary source (research) studies. A critical methodological deficiency, serious enough to make the study too problematic to provide useful evidence, was identified in two of the studies. Most (n = 22) conducted analyses limited to practitioners (n = 17), forensic science trainees (n = 2), or both forensic science practitioners and students (n = 3); other analyses were based on university student or general population participants. Latent fingerprint analysis was examined in 11 studies, with 1-3 other studies found in 13 other disciplines or domains. This set of studies provides a robust database, with evidence of the influence of confirmation bias on analysts conclusions, specifically among the studies with practitioners or trainees presented with case-specific information about the "suspect" or crime scenario (in 9 of 11 studies examining this question), procedures regarding use of exemplar(s) (in 4 of 4 studies), or knowledge of a previous decision (in 4 of 4 studies). The available research supports the idea of susceptibility of forensic science practitioners to various types of confirmation bias and of the potential value of procedures designed to reduce access to unnecessary information and control the order of providing relevant information, use of multiple comparison samples rather than a single suspect exemplar, and replication of results by analysts blinded to previous results.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive bias; Confirmation bias; Contextual information; Forensic science; Training

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30769302     DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int        ISSN: 0379-0738            Impact factor:   2.395


  11 in total

Review 1.  Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2016-2019.

Authors:  Andy Bécue; Heidi Eldridge; Christophe Champod
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 2.  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

3.  Author response: No need for throwing stones - Wherever you live….

Authors:  Lee J Curley; James Munro; Martin Lages
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  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

Review 5.  Interpol review of forensic science management literature 2016-2019.

Authors:  William P McAndrew; Max M Houck
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Letter to Editor.

Authors:  Hans Ditrich
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2021-11-27

Review 7.  Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.

Authors:  Lee J Curley; James Munro; Itiel E Dror
Journal:  Med Sci Law       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 2.051

8.  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.  An inconvenient truth: More rigorous and ecologically valid research is needed to properly understand cognitive bias in forensic decisions.

Authors:  Lee J Curley; James Munro; Martin Lages
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2020-02-08

10.  Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions.

Authors:  Itiel Dror; Judy Melinek; Jonathan L Arden; Jeff Kukucka; Sarah Hawkins; Joye Carter; Daniel S Atherton
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 1.832

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.