Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison

Forensic Science International

Volumn 208, Issue 1-3, 2011, Pages 10-17

  Dror, Itiel E ^a,b   Champod, Christophe ^c   Langenburg, Glenn ^c,d   Charlton, David ^e,f   Hunt, Heloise ^a   Rosenthal, Robert ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Cognitive Consultants International Ltd ^*  (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d Latent Print Laboratory   (United States)

^e BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f Fingerprint Bureau   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Fingerprint analysis; Human cognition; Latent fingerprinting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; LATENT MARK; NUMBER OF MINUTIAE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 79955479065     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. I.W. Evett, R.L. Williams, A review of the sixteen points fingerprint standard in England and Wales, The Print 12 (1) (1996) 1-13 (Also published in Fingerprint Whorld 21(82) (1995) 125-43; and in J. Forensic Ident 46(1), 49-73).
2. Evett I.W. Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science. Sci. Justice 1996, 36:118-122.
3. NAS, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2009.
4. Phillips V.L., Saks M.J., Peterson J.L. The application of signal detection theory to decision-making in forensic science. J. Forensic Sci. 2001, 46(2):294-308.
5. Vokey J., Tangen J., Cole S. On the preliminary psychophysics of fingerprint identification. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 2009, 62(5):1023-1040.
6. Rosenthal R. How often are our numbers wrong?. Am. Psychol. 1978, 33(11):1005-1008.
7. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2(2):175-220.
8. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J. Forensic Ident. 2006, 56(4):600-616.
9. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Péron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to make erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2006, 156(1):74-78.
10. Dror I.E., Mnookin J.L. The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law Prob. Risk 2010, 9(1):47-67.
11. Dror I.E., Péron A., Hind S., Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2005, 19(6):799-809.
12. Dror I.E., Rosenthal B. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of fingerprint experts' decision making. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53(4):900-903.
13. Langenburg G. A method performance pilot study: testing the accuracy, precision, repeatability, reproducibility, and biasability of the ACE-V process. J. Forensic Ident. 2009, 59(2):219-257.
14. Langenburg G., Champod C., Wertheim P. Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ace-v methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. J. Forensic Sci. 2009, 54(3):571-582.
15. Risinger D.M., Saks M.J., Thompson W.C., Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif. Law Rev. 2002, 90(1):1-56.
16. Hall L.J., Player E. Will the instruction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision making?. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2008, 181:36-39.
17. Saks M., Concerning L.J., Hall E. Player 'Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making?'. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2009, 191:e19.
18. Dror I.E. On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2009, 191:e17-e18.
19. Stacey R.B. Report on the erroneous fingerprint identification bombing case. J. Forensic Ident. 2004, 54(6):706-718.
20. Wertheim K., Langenburg G., Moenssens A. A report of latent print examiner accuracy during comparison training exercises. J. Forensic Ident. 2006, 56(1):55-93.
21. Dror I.E., Cole S. The vision in 'blind' justice: expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 2010, 17(2):161-167.
22. Thompson W.C. Interpretation: observer effects. Encyclopaedia of Forensic Sciences 2009, John Wiley & Sons, London, pp. 1575-1579. A. Moenssens, A. Jamieson (Eds.).
23. Langenburg G. Pilot study: a statistical analysis of the ACE-V methodology - analysis stage. J. Forensic Ident. 2004, 54(1):64-79.
24. Schiffer B., Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of finger mark individualization. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2007, 167:116-120.
25. B. Schiffer, The relationship between forensic science and judicial error: a study covering error sources bias and remedies, Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, 2009.
26. Busey T., Dror I.E. Special Abilities and Vulnerabilities in Forensic Expertise in Fingerprint Sourcebook 2010, NIJ Press, Washington, DC, USA, (Chapter 15).
27. I.E. Dror, The paradox of human expertise: why experts can get it, in: N. Kapur (Ed.), The Paradoxical Brain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press, (Chapter 9).
28. Potchen E.J., Cooper T.G., Sierra A.E., Aben G.R., Potchen M.J., Potter M.G., Siebert J.E. Measuring performance in chest radiography. Radiology 2000, 217:456-459.
29. Bektas S., Bahadir B., Kandemir N.O., Barut F., Gul A.E., Ozdamar S.O. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of fuhrman and modified fuhrman grading systems for conventional renal cell carcinoma. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2009, 25:596-600.
30. Summerfield C., Egner T. Expectation (and attention) in visual cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009, 13(9):403-409.
31. Ericsson K.A., Charness N., Feltovich P.J. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York. R.R. Hoffman (Ed.).
32. Development of Professional Expertise 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York. K.A. Ericsson (Ed.).
33. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R.L. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis 2007, McGraw-Hill Press. third ed.
34. Krane D.E., et al. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 56:1006.
35. Dror I.E. How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics: J. Law Sci. Techn. 2009, 50:93-110.
36. Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition 1987, Cambridge University Press, New York. S. Harnad (Ed.).