Bias among forensic document examiners: Still a need for procedural changes

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 91-97

  Stoel, Reinoud D ^a   Dror, Itiel E ^b,c   Miller, Larry S ^d  

^a NETHERLANDS FORENSIC INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c Cognitive Consultants International ^*  (United Kingdom)

^d EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive bias; Cognitive forensics; Context management; Domainirrelevant information; Forensic decision making

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHANGE MANAGEMENT; COGNITIVE BIAS; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DECISION MAKING; DOCUMENT EXAMINATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HANDWRITING; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL INTERACTION;

EID: 84890564862     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2013.797026     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Miller L. Bias among forensic document examiners: a need for procedural change. J Police Sci Admin 1984;12:407-410.
2. Risinger M, Saks M, Thompson W, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev. 2002;90:1-56.
3. National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening forensic science in the United States, a path forward. 2009; S-18. Available from: www.nap.edu/catalog/ 12589.html
4. Hagan WE. A treatise on disputed handwriting and the determination of genuine from forged signatures. New York: Banks & Brothers; 1894 (available online at http://books.google.com).
5. Miller L. Procedural bias in forensic examination of hair. Law and Human Behav. 1987;11 (2):157-163.
6. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Ident. 2006;56:600-616.
7. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;156:74-78.
8. Evett IW. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science case work. Sci Justice. 1998;38:98-202.
9. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.
10. Dror IE. Combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57:276-277.
11. Dror IE, Stoel RD. The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. New York: Springer; 2014. Chapter 147, Cognitive forensics: human cognition, contextual information and bias.
12. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1977.
13. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:231-259.
14. Rosenthal R. On the social psychology of the self-fulfilling prophecy; further evidence for Pygmalian effects and their mediating mechanism. New York: MSS Modular Publications; 1974.
15. Stoel RD, Berger CEH, Van den Heuvel E, Fagel W. De Wankele Kritiek op de forensische handschriftkunde [The shaky criticism on forensic handwriting analyses]. Nederlands Juristenblad. 2010;39:2537-2541.
16. Krane DE, Ford F, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, Kornfeld IR, Risinger MD, Rudin N, Taylor MS, Thompson WC. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53(4):1006-1007.
17. Found B, Ganas F. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci Justice. 2013;53:154-158.
18. Böttcher CJF. Theorie en practijk van de gerechtelijke schriftvergelijking [Theory and Practice of forensic handwriting comparison]. Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht. 1954;LXIII:77-131.