Triaging is an important step in deciding which items collected from crime scenes to select for forensic analysis, and so subsequent examination and findings often depend on it. This study aims to evaluate the influence of casework pressures and tolerance to ambiguity on triaging of items collected from a crime scene. A realistic pressure manipulation paradigm was developed and was found to be effective in inducing feelings of pressure in participants in an online setting. This pressure manipulation did not affect triaging decisions for both triaging experts (N = 48) and non-experts (N = 98). However, the results revealed inconsistent decisions, even among experts under identical pressure conditions and comparable background demographics. The findings also suggest that ambiguity aversion is an important factor to consider, as it can play a role in early hypotheses (e.g., reaching a decisive or inconclusive impression about a case), among other considerations. This study offers valuable insight for the development of policies for more consistent forensic triaging decisions.

Legal psychologists’ assessments can have a major impact on the fact finder’s evaluation of evidence and, consequently, perceptions of guilt. Yet, in the few studies about legal psychologists’ assessments and reports, great variability was found. As is the case with other forensic expert domains, legal psychologists are prone to cognitive biases, such as being adversely affected by irrelevant contextual information, confirmation bias, and allegiance bias. Based on the scientific literature, we propose several ways in which legal psychologists can minimize cognitive biases in their assessments, most notably the alternative scenario method. Furthermore, we propose guidelines for expert witnesses in the legal psychological domain, designed to make reports as scientifically grounded, applicable, readable, transparent, and bias-free as possible. We hope that the guidelines will enhance the quality of expert witness testimony provided by legal psychologists around the world.

Inconclusives1 is an elusive conclusion in any domain, and in particular in the forensic sciences. Until recently, it has been relatively neglected, if not ignored, as it has been viewed incorrectly as a 'non-decision' with little implication or importance (in contrast to a decisive conclusion, e.g., a 'match' vs. an 'exclusion', or a 'homicide' vs. an 'accident'). However, inconclusives is not simply a matter of 'not to decide', but actually involves making an important decision to 'decide not to decide' (Dror and Langenburg, 2019). Inconclusive decisions have critical implications to casework and error rate studies. In casework, e.g., in fingerprinting, deciding an inconclusive rather than an exclusion may prevent the police from eliminating a suspect from an investigation. In forensic pathology, e.g., deciding that a death is undetermined rather than a homicide may prevent a full police investigation. This may be especially problematic if there is a systematic and disproportional undetermined conclusions when people die while in police custody.

A “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Race in the Criminal Justice System” [...]

Despite measures for physicians’ excellence in diagnosis, the need for improvement of medical history techniques has been pointed out as one of the critical elements for improving diagnosis. Specific and proactive frameworks related to methods of effective history acquisition are needed to minimise bias and optimise decision-making. Therefore, this paper uses Linear Sequential Unmasking- Expanded to develop and propose a structured medical history acquisition strategy. The strength of this lies in its reliance on cognitive psychological processes. Breaking information gatherings and decisions into smaller tasks and ordering them correctly reduces cognitive load as well as minimises noise and bias cascade. Additionally, this approach can help physicians develop diagnostic expertise regardless of specialty.

Stress has been shown to have an impact on the quality of decisions made by professionals in a variety of domains. However, there is lack of research examining the impact of stress on forensic decision-making contexts, where experts can face various levels of stress. This exploratory study examines fingerprint decisions made under stress, by novices (N = 115) and fingerprint experts (N = 34). Findings suggested a potentially complex relationship between stress and expert performance. On the one hand, in this study stress seemed to improve the performance of both novices and experts on fingerprint assessments, but mainly for same-source evidence. In contrast, the induced stress appeared to have an impact on risk-taking. When the same-source prints were difficult, a trend emerged with stressed experts taking less risk and reported more inconclusive conclusions with higher confidence than the control group. Furthermore, stress had a significant impact on the overall confidence levels and response times of novices, but not experts. These findings suggest that stress and decision-making tasks are important factors that should be considered when considering optimal working environments for increasing decision quality.

Abstract Forensic science evidence has long been accepted in court and is widely considered infallible. However, the forensic sciences have recently come under intense scrutiny, as forensic science errors have been implicated in an alarming number of wrongful convictions. In working to better understand and prevent such errors, researchers have discovered that they are often an unfortunate by-product of innate psychological processes. This chapter first reviews evidence that forensic science examiners, like all humans, are vulnerable to unconscious biases that can lead to erroneous judgments. Second, the chapter identifies barriers to mitigating the pernicious effects of bias in forensic laboratories and courtrooms, including widespread misconceptions about its causes and effects. Third, proposed reforms are offered to strengthen forensic science, with descriptions of some progress that has already been made in that regard.

Introduction: The current research explored the magnitude of professional industrial investigators’ bias to attribute cause to a person more readily than to situational factors, i.e., human error bias. Such biased opinions may relieve companies from responsibilities and liability, as well as, compromise efficacy of suggested preventative measures. Method: Professional investigators and undergraduate participants were given a summary of a workplace event and asked to allocated cause to the factors they found causal for the event. The summary was crafted to be objectively balanced in its implication of cause equally between two factors: a worker and a tire. Participants then rated their confidence and the objectivity of their judgment. We then conducted an effect size analysis which supplemented the findings from our experiment with two previously published research studies that used the same event summary. Results: Professionals exhibited a human error bias, but nevertheless believed that they were objective and confident in their conclusions. The lay control group also showed this human error bias. These data, along with previous research data, revealed that given the equivalent investigative circumstances, this bias was significantly larger with the professional investigators, with an effect size of dunb = .97, than the control group with an effect size of only dunb = .32. Conclusions: The direction and strength of the human error bias can be quantified, and is shown to be larger in professional investigators compared to the lay people.Practical Applications: Understanding the strength and direction of bias is a crucial step in mitigating the effects of the bias. The results of the current research demonstrate that mitigation strategies such as proper investigator training, a strong investigation culture and standardized techniques, are potentially promising interventions to mitigate human error bias.

Although judges may be well intended when taking an oath to be impartial when they reach the bench, psychological and legal literature suggests that their legal approaches, behaviour, and decision-making processes are subconsciously impacted by biases stemming from and influenced by their attitudes, ideology, backgrounds, and previous experiences. Drawing from prior models of sources of bias in legal contexts and existing literature on judges, this paper discusses and models potential sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges with prosecutorial backgrounds. These include (1) professional and self-selection into the judiciary; (2) prosecutorial socialization and attitudes that can shape a prosecutorial mindset; and (3) the effects of common unconscious biases, confirmation bias and role induced bias, that may shape judicial behaviour through formed beliefs and approaches stemming from the prosecutorial mindset and selection into the judiciary. As the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors in the U.S. as well as in many other countries, this paper considers possible ways to deal with pro-prosecution bias and the potential importance of diversifying judges' professional backgrounds.

Medical opinions are often essential evidence in criminal cases but relatively little is known about the factors that impact forensic doctors' decision making. This research examines the role and impact of having an alternative hypothesis while forming a medical opinion. A scenario-based experiment with forensic doctors (n = 20) was conducted. In two out of three scenarios, the existence of alternative hypotheses impacted the actual opinions reached, the confidence in the judgments and the perceived consistency with the plaintiff hypothesis. Investigative and legal actors should be aware of the possibility of biases and importance of having alternative hypotheses when requesting and evaluating medical opinions.

To explore the role of contextual information in determining manner of death, four cases involving single gunshot wounds were presented to participants (n = 252) involved in medicolegal death investigation. The participants received identical autopsy information but different contextual information. The data demonstrated that participants tended to rely on contextual information more than autopsy information: In the suicide context, participants across the four cases reached 153 final decisions of suicide (and 25 of homicide), whereas in the homicide context, participants reached only 10 final decisions of suicide (and 181 of homicide) --all while examining identical autopsy information. The impact of the contextual information was so powerful that many participants changed initial autopsy-based conclusions to align with the contextual information. Given the significant role and impact that contextual information has on expert decision making, one must consider what, how, and when contextual information should be used.

Forensic science evidence has long been accepted in court and is widely considered infallible. However, the forensic sciences have recently come under intense scrutiny, as forensic science errors have been implicated in an alarming number of wrongful convictions. In working to better understand and prevent such errors, researchers have discovered that they are often an unfortunate byproduct of innate psychological processes. In this chapter, we first review evidence that forensic science examiners, like all humans, are vulnerable to unconscious biases that can lead to erroneous judgments. Second, we identify barriers to mitigating the pernicious effects of bias in forensic laboratories and courtrooms, including widespread misconceptions about its causes and effects. Third, we discuss proposed reforms to strengthen forensic science, and we describe some progress that has already been made in that regard.

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.

Forensic science practitioners compare visual evidence samples (e.g. fingerprints) and decide if they originate from the same person or different people (i.e. fingerprint ‘matching’). These tasks are perceptually and cognitively complex—even practising professionals can make errors—and what limited research exists suggests that existing professional training is ineffective. This paper presents three experiments that demonstrate the benefit of perceptual training derived from mathematical theories that suggest statistically rare features have diagnostic utility in visual comparison tasks. Across three studies ( N = 551), we demonstrate that a brief module training participants to focus on statistically rare fingerprint features improves fingerprint-matching performance in both novices and experienced fingerprint examiners. These results have applied importance for improving the professional performance of practising fingerprint examiners, and even other domains where this technique may also be helpful (e.g. radiology or banknote security).

This paper presents a method to induce stress in human subjects during online participation in research studies without the presence of researchers. In this study, participants in the stress-inducing condition ( N = 52, 44%) were asked to answer general knowledge and mathematical questions which people often get wrong, and did so under time pressure as well as receiving feedback. In contrast, participants in the control condition ( N = 66, 56%) did not have time pressure or receive feedback. The stress manipulation was found to be effective, as the reported state anxiety and visual analog scale on stress scores were higher for the stress group than for the non-stress group (both findings, p < 0.001). Consistent findings were found when accounting for trait anxiety as a moderator, with the exception of the state anxiety levels in high trait anxiety group. This stressing method combines the established stress conditions of uncontrollability (such as time pressures) and social evaluative threats (such as negative feedback). In addition, the method contains specific measures (such as a commitment statement and attention check questions) to enhance the internal validity by preventing and detecting cheating or random responses. This method can be deployed through any commonly available online software. It offers a simple and cost-effective way to collect data online – which fits the increasing need to carry out research in virtual and online environments.

It is unclear whether humans assess similarity differently than automated algorithms in firearms comparisons. Human participants (untrained in firearm examination) were asked to assess the similarity of pairs of images (from 0 to 100). A sample of 40 pairs of cartridge casing 2D-images was used. The images were divided into 4 groups according to their similarity as determined by an algorithm. Humans were able to distinguish between matches and non-matches (both when shown the 2 middle groups, as well as when shown all 4 groups). Thus, humans are able to make high-quality similarity judgments in firearm comparisons based on two images. The humans' similarity scores were superior to the algorithms' scores at distinguishing matches and non-matches, but inferior in assessing similarity within groups. This suggests that humans do not have the same group thresholds as the algorithm, and that a hybrid human-machine approach could provide better identification results than humans or algorithms alone.

Forensic analysts often receive information from a multitude of sources. Empirical work clearly demonstrates that biasing information can affect analysts' decisions, and that the order in which task-relevant information is received impacts human cognition and decision-making. Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU; Dror et al., 2015) and LSU-Expanded (LSU-E; Dror & Kukucka, 2021) are examples of research-based procedural frameworks to guide laboratories' and analysts' consideration and evaluation of case information. These frameworks identify parameters—such as objectivity, relevance, and biasing power—to prioritize and optimally sequence information for forensic analyses. Moreover, the LSU-E framework can be practically incorporated into any forensic discipline to improve decision quality by increasing the repeatability, reproducibility, and transparency of forensic analysts’ decisions, as well as reduce bias. Future implementation of LSU and LSU-E in actual forensic casework can be facilitated by concrete guidance. We present here a practical worksheet designed to bridge the gap between research and practice by facilitating the implementation of LSU-E.

Journal of Forensic SciencesVolume 66, Issue 6 p. 2559-2560 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Authors’ Response to Gill et al Response Itiel E. Dror PhD, Corresponding Author Itiel E. Dror PhD i.dror@ucl.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0003-4866-209X University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJudy Melinek MD, Judy Melinek MD PathologyExpert Inc, San Francisco, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJonathan L. Arden MD, Jonathan L. Arden MD Arden Forensics, PC, McLean, VA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJeff Kukucka PhD, Jeff Kukucka PhD orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-7803 Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USASearch for more papers by this authorSarah Hawkins JD, Sarah Hawkins JD Clark County Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, USASearch for more papers by this authorJoye Carter MD, PhD, Joye Carter MD, PhD Sheriff/Coroner Division at San Luis Obispo Count-California, San Luis Obispo, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorDaniel S. Atherton MD, Daniel S. Atherton MD Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USASearch for more papers by this author Itiel E. Dror PhD, Corresponding Author Itiel E. Dror PhD i.dror@ucl.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0003-4866-209X University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJudy Melinek MD, Judy Melinek MD PathologyExpert Inc, San Francisco, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJonathan L. Arden MD, Jonathan L. Arden MD Arden Forensics, PC, McLean, VA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJeff Kukucka PhD, Jeff Kukucka PhD orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-7803 Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USASearch for more papers by this authorSarah Hawkins JD, Sarah Hawkins JD Clark County Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, USASearch for more papers by this authorJoye Carter MD, PhD, Joye Carter MD, PhD Sheriff/Coroner Division at San Luis Obispo Count-California, San Luis Obispo, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorDaniel S. Atherton MD, Daniel S. Atherton MD Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 September 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14846 See Original Dror et al Article https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14697 See JFS Editor-in-Chief Preface https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14844 See Gill et al Commentary on https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14838 See Authors’ Response to Gill et al Commentary on https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14850 See Gill et al Response to Authors’ Response https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14840 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume66, Issue6November 2021Pages 2559-2560 RelatedInformation