Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: Visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias

Science and Justice

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 208-214

  Nakhaeizadeh, Sherry ^a   Dror, Itiel E ^b   Morgan, Ruth M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cognitive bias; Cognitive forensic; Decision making; Forensic anthropology; Forensic science

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ANCESTRY GROUP; ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE TEST; COGNITIVE BIAS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIRMATION BIAS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEATH; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERPRETATION BIAS; MALE; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; SEX DETERMINATION; SKELETON;

COGNITIVE BIAS; COGNITIVE FORENSIC; DECISION-MAKING; FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY; FORENSIC SCIENCE;

AGE DETERMINATION BY SKELETON; BONE AND BONES; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; FEMALE; FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SEX DETERMINATION BY SKELETON;

EID: 84895891993     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: 18764452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Morgan R.M., Bull P.A. Forensic geoscience and crime detection. Identification, interpretation and presentation in forensic geoscience. Minerva Medicoleg. 2007, 127:73-90.
2. Hiss J., Freund M., Kahnan T. The forensic expert witness-an issue of competency. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007, 68:89-94.
3. Dror I.E., Cole S. The vision in "blind" justice: expert perception, judgment and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2010, 17:161-167.
4. Found B., Ganas F. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci. Justice 2013, 53:154-158.
5. Bieber P. Measuring the impact of cognitive bias in fire investigation. International symposium on fire investigation. Sci. Technol. 2012, 3-15.
6. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Context effects and observer bias-implications for forensic odontology. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57:108-112.
7. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J. Forensic Identif. 2006, 56:600-616.
8. Kerstholt J., Eikelboom A., Dijkman T., Stoel R., Van Leuven R.B. Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons?. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 198:138-142.
9. Dror I.E., Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:204-208.
10. Dror I.E., Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:900-903.
11. Kassin S., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2013, 2:42-52.
12. Evett I. Evaluation and professionalism. Sci. Justice 2009, 4:159-228.
13. Bressan P., Dal Martello M. Talis pater, talis filius: perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 13:213-218.
14. Hamilton D., Zanna M.P. Context effect in impression formation: changes in connotative meaning. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 29:649-654.
15. Kunda Z. The case of motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 108:480-489.
16. Ask K., Granhag P.A. Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. The need for cognitive closure. J. Investig. Psychol. Offender Profiling 2005, 2:43-63.
17. Dror I.E. Combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57:276-277.
18. Byers S.N. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 2005, Pearson Education, U.S. Third ed.
19. Pickering R.B., Bachman D.C. The Use of Forensic Anthropology 2009, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
20. Cox M., Mays S. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science 2000, Greenwitch, London.
21. Christensen A.M. The impact of Daubert: implications for testimony and research in forensic anthropology (and the use of frontal sinuses in personal identification). J. Forensic Sci. 2004, 49:427-430.
22. Hefner J.T., Ousley S.D., Dirkmaat D.C. Morphoscopic traits and assessment of ancestry. A Comparison to Forensic Anthropology 2012, 287-310. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. D.C. Dirkmaat (Ed.).
23. Grivas C.R., Komar D.A. Khumo Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications of forensic anthropology. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:771-776.
24. Spradley M.K., Jantz R.L. Sex estimation in forensic anthropology: skull versus postcranial elements. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56:289-296.
25. Nakhaeizadeh S., Hanson I., Dozzi N. The power of contextual effects in forensic anthropology: a study of biasability in the visual interpretations of trauma analysis on skeletal remains. J. Forensic Sci. 2014, (in press).