New application of psychology to law: Improving forensic evidence and expert witness contributions

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 78-81

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

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

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

Author keywords

Bias; Criminal justice; Expert decision making and judgment; Forensic science; Psychology and law

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875331400     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.003     Document Type: Note

References (28)

1. Butt L. The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions-Commentary by a forensic examiner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):44-45.
2. Campbell A. The fingerprint inquiry report 2011, Available at: http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/3127-2.html.
3. Charlton D. Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination? Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):56-57.
4. Charman S. The forensic confirmation bias: A problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):41-43.
5. Cole S. Implementing counter-measures against confirmation bias in forensic science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):46-47.
6. Dror I.E. On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Science International 2009, 191:17-18.
7. Dror I.E., Champod C., Langenburg G., Charlton D., Hunt L., 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02013.x.
11. Elaad E. Psychological contamination in forensic decisions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):61-62.
12. Garrett B. Blinded criminal justice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):58-60.
13. Haber R.N., Haber L. The culture of science: Bias and forensic evidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):50-52.
14. Heyer R., Semmler S. Forensic confirmation bias: The case of facial image comparison. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):53-55.
15. Kassin S.M., Bogart D., Kerner J. Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science 2012, 23:41-45. 10.1177/0956797611422918.
16. Kassin S.M., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.
17. NAS Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward 2009, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
18. 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.
19. NIST Expert Working Group on human factors in latent print analysis. Latent print examination and human factors: Improving the practice through a systems approach 2012, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
20. OIG A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield case 2006, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight & Review Division, US Department of Justice.
21. Risinger D.M. The NAS/NRC report on forensic science: A glass nine-tenths full (this is about the other tenth). Jurimetrics 2009, 50:21.
22. 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.
23. Sullivan T.P., Vail A.W., Anderson H.W. The case for recording police interrogation. Litigation 2008, 34(3):1-8.
24. Thompson W.C. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence?. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 2011, 43:123-134.
25. Triplett M. Errors in forensics: Cause(s) and solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013, 2(1):48-49.
26. Ulery B.T., Hicklin R.A., Buscaglia J., Roberts M.A. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLoS ONE 2012, 7(3):e32800.
27. 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.
28. Wells G.L., Wilford M.W., Smalarz L. 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 2013, 2(1):38-40.