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

Practical Solutions to Forensic Contextual Bias

Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000409

Abstract

Abstract. In 2009, the National Research Council (NRC) globally criticized forensic science and, in particular, the potential for contextual bias to increase errors in forensic examination. Nevertheless, very few research-based solutions have been proposed and, of the current recommendations, none are consistently used in practice. Two experiments are presented here. Experiment 1 replicates and extends the Quigley-McBride and Wells (2018) study in which fingerprint lineups (the Filler-Control Procedure) were shown to neutralize the effect of contextual information on novice fingerprint evaluations. Experiment 2 demonstrates that restricting the use of evidence lineups to verification decisions would also be effective for reducing incorrect match decisions without straining resources. In both experiments, the filler-control procedure consistently reduced the effect of suggestive contextual information and protected innocent suspect prints from being mistakenly matched to crime samples. Interdisciplinary approaches are discussed as a way to help close the gap between research and forensic science practice.

References

  • 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/10.10002/acp.1432 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cole, S. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 985–1078. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron, 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. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.161 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51, 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., & Langenburg, G. (2019). “Cannot decide: The fine line between appropriate and inconclusive determinations versus unjustifiably deciding not to decide. Journal of Forensic Science, 64, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13854 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dror, I. E., Peron, A. E., Hind, S., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

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

  • Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M. (2015). Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Science, 60, 1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The effect of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners’ decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279–292. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Houston Forensic Science Center. (2016). Analysis, comparison, evaluation and verification methodology: FAD-LP-ACE-V methodology, Sections 1.3.4 and 1.4. Latent print section standard operating procedures. Retrieved from https://www.houstonforensicscience.org/services.php?var=44 First citation in articleGoogle 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

  • Koriat, A., & Shitzer-Reichert, R. (2002). Metacognitive judgments and their accuracy. In P. ChambresM. IzauteP. MarescauxEds., Metacognition (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Kluwer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 452–459. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Langenburg, G., Champod, C., & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V Methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. Journal of Forensic Science, 54, 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Miller, L. S. (1987). Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hair. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040448 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Osborne, N. K. P., Woods, S., Kieser, J., & Zajac, R. (2014). Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Science & Justice, 54(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Quigley-McBride, A., & Wells, G. L. (2018). Fillers can help control for contextual bias in forensic comparison tasks. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000295 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M., & Cameron, L. D. (2013). Advancing innovations in social/personality psychology and health opportunities and challenges. Health Psychology, 32, 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032116 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Saks, M. J., Risinger, D. M., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W. C. (2003). Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice, 43, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(03)71747-X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Expertise with unfamiliar objects is flexible to changes in task but not changes in class. PLoS One, 12, e0178403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178403 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smith, A. M., Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Fair lineups are better than biased lineups and showups, but not because they increase underlying discriminability. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000219 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025438223608 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stevenage, S. V., & Bennett, A. (2017). A biased opinion: Demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA testing results. Forensic Science International, 276, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2011). Identifying fingerprint expertise. Psychological Science, 22, 995–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414729 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2014). The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching: Experts can do a lot with a little. PLoS One, 9, e114759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114759 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & McCarthy, J. D. (2014). Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 84–93. https://doi.org/10/1037/lhb0000051 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Robert, M. A. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 108, 7733–7738. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2012). Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS One, 7, e32800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Roberts, M. A., & Buscaglia, J. (2014). Measuring what latent fingerprint examiners consider sufficient information for individualization determinations. PLoS One, 9, e110179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110179 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Virginia Department of Forensic Science. (2019). Friction Ridge Print Examination, Section 11.5. 241–D100 Latent print procedures manual. Retrieved from https://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/241-D100-Latent-Print-Procedures-Manual.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness Identification Reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives in Psychology Science, 7, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612443368 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wells, G. L., Wilford, M. W., & Smalarz, L. (2013). Forensic science testing: The forensic filler-control method for controlling contextual bias, estimating error rates, and calibrating analysts’ reports. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar