The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 42-52

  Kassin, Saul M ^a   Dror, Itiel E ^b   Kukucka, Jeff ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Confirmation bias; Context effects; Expectancy effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875322375     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Anderson C.A., Lepper M.R., Ross L. Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, 39:1037-1049.
2. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
3. Asch S.E. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1946, 41:258-290.
4. Ask K., Rebelius A., Granhag P.A. The elasticity of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22:1245-1259. 10.1002/acp.1432.
5. Balcetis E., Dunning D. See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006, 91:612-625. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612.
6. Balcetis E., Dunning D. Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as close. Psychological Science 2010, 21:147-152.
7. Baumann A.O., Deber R.B., Thompson G.G. Overconfidence among physicians and nurses: The micro-certainty, macro-uncertainty phenomenon. Social Science and Medicine 1991, 32:167-174.
8. Bilaisis V. Harmless error: Abettor of courtroom misconduct. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 1983, 74:457-475.
9. Boring E.G. A new ambiguous figure. The American Journal of Psychology 1930, 42:444-445. 10.2307/1415447.
10. Bressan P., Dal Martello M.F. 'Talis pater, talis filius': Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychological Science 2002, 13:213-218. 10.1111/1467-9280.00440.
11. Brewer N., Wells G.L. Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2011, 20:24-27.
12. Bruner J.S., Goodman C.C. Value and need as organizing factors in perception. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1947, 42:33-44. 10.1037/h0058484.
13. Bruner J.S., Potter M.C. Interference in visual recognition. Science 1964, 144:424-425. 10.1126/science.144.3617.424.
14. Canter D., Hammond L., Youngs D. Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: The impact of administrator knowledge. Science and Justice 2012, 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.001.
15. Charlton D., Fraser-Mackenzie P.A.F., Dror I.E. Emotional experiences and motivating factors associated with fingerprint analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2010, 55:385-393. 10.1111/j. 1556-4029.2009.01295.x.
16. Charman S.D., Gregory A.H., Carlucci M. Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: Beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2009, 15:76-90. 10.1037/a0014682.
17. Charman S.D., Wells G.L. Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2008, 14:5-20.
18. Cole S.A. Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification 2001, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Darley J.M., Fazio R.H. Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist 1980, 35:867-881. 10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867.
20. Darley J.M., Gross P.H. A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983, 44:20-33. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20.
21. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. (1993).
22. Dror I.E. How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 2009, 50:93-110.
23. Dror I.E. On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Science International 2009, 191:17-18.
24. Dror I.E. Cognitive bias in forensic science. The 2012 yearbook of science & technology 2012, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 43-45.
25. Dror I.E., Champod C., Langenburg G., Charlton D., Hunt H., Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter-and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Science International 2011, 208:10-17. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013.
26. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 2006, 56:600-616.
27. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 2006, 156:174-178. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.
28. Dror I.E., Cole S.A. The vision in blind justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2010, 17:161-167. 10.3758/PBR.17.2.161.
29. Dror I.E., Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice 2011, 51:204-208. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004.
30. Dror I.E., Mnookin J. The use of technology in human expert domains: Challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law, Probability and Risk 2010, 9(1):47-67.
31. Dror I.E., Peron A.E., Hind S.-L., Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2005, 19:799-809. 10.1002/acp.1130.
32. Dror I.E., Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53:900-903. 10.1111/j. 1556-4029.2008.00762.x.
33. Dror I.E., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2012, 57(2):343-352.
34. Edmonds v. Mississippi, 955 So.2d 787 (2007).
35. Elaad E., Ginton A., Ben-Shakhar G. The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1994, 7:279-292. 10.1002/bdm.3960070405.
36. Findley K.A., Scott M.S. The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review 2006, 2:291-397.
37. Fisher G.H. Ambiguity of form: Old and new. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 1968, 4:189-192. 10.3758/BF03210466.
38. Gabbert F., Memon A., Allan K. Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event?. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2003, 88:341-347.
39. Garrett B.L. Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong 2011, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Grann D. Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?. The New Yorker 2009, (September).
41. Gudjonsson G.H. The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook 2003, Wiley, Chichester.
42. Hagan W.E. A treatise on disputed handwriting and the determination of genuine from forged signatures 1894, Banks & Brothers, New York, NY.
43. Hall L.J., Player E. Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making?. Forensic Science International 2008, 181:36-39. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.08.008.
44. Halverson A.M., Hallahan M., Hart A.J., Rosenthal R. Reducing the biasing effects of judges' nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997, 82:590-598. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.590.
45. Hamilton D.L., Zanna M.P. Context effects in impression formation: Changes in connotative meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1974, 29:649-654.
46. Hampikian G., West E., Akselrod O. The genetics of innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA exonerations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2011, 12:97-120.
47. Hasel L.E., Kassin S.M. On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications?. Psychological Science 2009, 20:122-126. 10.1111/j. 1467-9280.2008.02262.x.
48. Hill C., Memon A., McGeorge P. The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology 2008, 13:357-371. 10.1348/135532507X238682.
49. Hochschild J.L. How ideas affect actions. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis 2008, 284. Oxford University Press. R.E. Goodin, C. Tilly (Eds.).
50. Jussim L. Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy 2012, Oxford University Press, New York.
51. Kassin S.M. The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist 1997, 52:221-233.
52. Kassin S.M. Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist 2012, 67:431-445.
53. Kassin S.M., Bogart D., Kerner J. Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science 2012, 23:41-45.
54. Kassin S.M., Drizin S.A., Grisso T., Gudjonsson G.H., Leo R.A., Redlich A.D. Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior 2010, 34:3-38. 10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6.
55. Kassin S.M., Goldstein C.C., Savitsky K. Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior 2003, 27:187-203. 10.1023/A:1022599230598.
56. Kassin S.M., Gudjonsson G.H. The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2004, 5:33-67. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x.
57. Kassin S.M., Kiechel K.L. The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science 1996, 7:125-128.
58. Kerstholt J., Eikelboom A., Dijkman T., Stoel R., Hermsen R., van Leuven B. Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons?. Forensic Science International 2010, 198:138-142. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.007.
59. Kerstholt J., Paashuis R., Sjerps M. Shoe print examinations: Effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic Science International 2007, 165:30-34. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.02.039.
60. Kierein N.M., Gold M.A. Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2000, 21:913-928.
61. Klayman J., Ha Y.-W. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Bulletin 1997, 94:211-228. 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211.
62. Koppl R., Kurzban R., Kobilinsky L. Epistemics for forensics. Episteme 2008, 5(2):141-159.
63. Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2012, April). Do confessions taint juror perceptions of handwriting evidence? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 14-17.
64. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137. (1999).
65. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 108:480-498. 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
66. Lange N.D., Thomas R.P., Dana J., Dawes R.M. Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law and Human Behavior 2011, 35:178-187. 10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4.
67. Leadbetter M. Letter to the Editor. Fingerprint World 2007, 33:231.
68. Leeper R. A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology 1935, 46:41-75.
69. Lieberman J.D., Carrell C.A., Miethe T.D., Krauss D.A. Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 2008, 14:27-62. 10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27.
70. Lynch M. God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic evidence. Endeavor 2003, 27:93-97. 10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00068-1.
71. McNatt D.B. Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, 85:314-322.
72. Mezulis A., Abramson L., Hyde J.S., Hankin B.L. Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin 2004, 130:711-746.
73. Miller L.S. Bias among forensic document examiners: A need for procedural changes. Journal of Police Science and Administration 1984, 12:407-411.
74. Miller L.S. Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hair. Law and Human Behavior 1987, 11:157-163. 10.1007/BF01040448.
75. Mnookin J.L., Cole S.A., Dror I.E., Fisher B.A., Houck M., Inman K., et al. The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review 2011, 58(3):725-779.
76. Mower L., McMurdo D. Las Vegas police reveal DNA error put wrong man in prison. Las Vegas Review Journal 2011, July.
77. Narchet F.M., Meissner C.A., Russano M.B. Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior 2011, 35:452-465. 10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x.
78. Nash R.A., Wade K.A. Innocent but proven guilty: Using false video evidence to elicit false confessions and create false beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2009, 23:624-637.
79. National Academy of Sciences Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press., Washington, DC.
80. Nickerson R.S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 1998, 2:175-220. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.
81. NIST. (2012). Expert Working Group on human factors in latent print analysis. Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm%3Fpub_id=910745.
82. O'Brien B. Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 2009, 15:315-334.
83. OIG. (2006). A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Office of the Inspector General, Oversight & Review Division, US Department of Justice.
84. OIG. (2011). A review of the FBI's progress in responding to the recommendations in the office of the inspector general report on the fingerprint misidentification in the Brandon Mayfield case. <>. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1105.pdf.
85. Perillo J.T., Kassin S.M. Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior 2011, 35:327-337. 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2.
86. Peterson J.L., Mihajlovic S., Gilliland M. Forensic evidence and the police 1984, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
87. Radel R., Clement-Guillotin C. Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science 2012, 23:232-234.
88. Risinger D.M., Saks M.J. Science and nonscience in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Review 1996, 82:21-74.
89. 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. California Law Review 2002, 90:1-56.
90. Rosenthal R. Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist 2002, 57:839-849. 10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.839.
91. Rosenthal R., Fode K. The effect of experimenter bias on performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science 1963, 8:183-189.
92. Rosenthal R., Jacobson L. Teachers' expectancies: Determinants of pupils' IQ gains. Psychological Reports 1966, 19:115-118. 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.115.
93. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:892-895. 10.1126/science.1111565.
94. Saks M.J., Risinger D.M., Rosenthal R., Thompson W.C. Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice 2003, 43:77-90.
95. Simon D. The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials. Vanderbilt Law Review 2011, 64:143-223.
96. Skagerberg E.M. Co-witness feedback in line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21:489-497.
97. Skitka L.J., Mullen E., Griffin T., Hutchinson S., Chamberlin B. Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 83:470-487.
98. Snyder M., Swann W.B. Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36:1202-1212. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1202.
99. Steblay N., Dysart J., Fulero S., Lindsay R.C.L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2003, 27:523-540. 10.1023/A:1025438223608.
100. Tangen J.M., Thompson M.B., McCarthy D.J. Identifying fingerprint expertise. Psychological Science 2011, 22:995-997. 10.1177/0956797611414729.
101. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement [booklet] 1999, United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC, Document Number NCJ-178240.
102. Thompson-Cannino J., Cotton R., Torneo E. Picking Cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption 2009, St. Martin's Press, New York.
103. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
104. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 2011, 108(19):7733-7738.
105. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:1-12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032800.
106. U.S. v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62. (1999).
107. Wason P.C. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1960, 12:129-140. 10.1080/17470216008416717.
108. Watkins M.J., Peynircioglu Z.F. Determining perceived meaning during impression formation: Another look at the meaning change hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1984, 46:1005-1016.
109. Wells G.L., Small M., Penrod S., Malpass R., Fulero S., Brimacombe C.A.E. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law & Human Behavior 1998, 22:603-647.