Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article
Editorial

The Psychology of Forensic Evidence

Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000418
Free first page

References

  • Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Motivational bias in criminal investigators’ judgments of witness reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 561–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00175.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The “elasticity” of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Despodova, N. M., Kukucka, J., & Hiley, A. (2020). Can defense attorneys detect forensic confirmation bias? Effects on evidentiary judgments and trial strategies. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 216–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000414 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Dhami, M. K. (2003). Psychological models of professional decision making. Psychological Science, 14, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01438 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dhami, M. K., Belton, I., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2015). Quasirational models of sentencing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024823706560 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta‐analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Martschuk, N. (2020). Mock jury and juror responses to uncharged acts of sexual misconduct: Advances in the assessment of unfair prejudice. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000410 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jang, M., Luke, T. J., Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2020). The impact of evidence type on police investigators’ perceptions of suspect culpability and evidence reliability. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000411 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science, 23, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422918 First citation in articleCrossref, 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, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Keren, G., & Teigen, K. H. (2004). Yet another look at the heuristics and biases approach. In Derek J. KoehlerNigel HarveyEds., Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 89–109). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kiely, T. F. (2005). Forensic evidence: Science and the criminal law, CRC Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Killgrove, K. (2018). These three forensic science techniques from ancient Rome reveal shocking gaps in modern methods. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2018/11/28/these-three-forensic-science-techniques-from-ancient-rome-reveal-shocking-gaps-in-modern-methods/#76722a9a58fe First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Koehler, J. J. (2020). Forensic source conclusions: Twenty threats to validity. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000413 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neth, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Heuristics: Tools for an uncertain world. In R. ScottS. KosslynEds., Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Wiley Online Library. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Quigley-McBride, A. (2020). Practical solutions to forensic contextual bias. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000409 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Sagana, A., & van Toor, D.A.G. (2020). The judge as a procedural decision-maker: Addressing the disconnect between legal psychology and legal practice. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 226–228. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000417 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111565 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sanson, M., Crozier, W. E., & Strange, D. (2020). Court case context and fluency-promoting photos inflate the credibility of forensic science. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000415 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020). Allegiance bias in statement reliability evaluations is not eliminated by two-sided instructions. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000416 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2018). What evidence matters to jurors? The prevalence and importance of different homicide trial evidence to mock jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 25, 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1437666 First citation in articleCrossref, 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, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000190 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tersago, P., Vanderhallen, M., Rozie, J., & McIntyre, S. J. (2020). From suspect statement to legal decision making: How do judges weigh the evidence? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 228, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000412 First citation in articleAbstract, Google Scholar

  • von Helversen, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2009). Predicting sentencing for low level crimes: Comparing models of human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018024 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar