Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 256-270

  Kukucka, Jeff ^a   Kassin, Saul M ^a  

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

Author keywords

confessions; confirmation bias; context effects; forensic science

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HANDWRITING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; PILOT STUDY; PREJUDICE; PRISONER; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HANDWRITING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PILOT PROJECTS; PREJUDICE; PRISONERS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84901951620     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000066     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The "elasticity" of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1245-1259. doi:10.1002/acp.1432
2. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612-625. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
3. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147-152. doi:10.1177/0956797609356283
4. Boring, E. G. (1930). A new ambiguous figure. The American Journal of Psychology, 42, 444-445. doi:10.2307/1415447
5. Bressan, P., & Dal Martello, M. F. (2002). "Talis pater, talis filius:" Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychological Science, 13, 213-218. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00440
6. Bruner, J. S., & Potter, M. C. (1964). Interference in visual recognition. Science, 144, 424-425. doi:10.1126/science.144.3617.424
7. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
8. Butt, L. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions: Commentary by a forensic examiner. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 59-60.
9. Charlton, D. (2013). Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination: Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency? Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 71-72.
10. Charman, S. D. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: A problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 56-58.
11. Charman, S. D., Gregory, A. H., & Carlucci, M. (2009). Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: Beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 76-90. doi:10.1037/a0014682
12. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS one, 8, e57410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
13. Daubert v. Merrell. (1993). Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509, U.S. 579.
14. Dror, I. E., Champod, C., Langenburg, G., Charlton, D., Hunt, H., & Rosenthal, R. (2011). Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-author consistency and the effect of a "target" comparison. Forensic Science International, 208, 10-17. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013
15. Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600-616.
16. Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron, A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74-78. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
17. Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51, 204-208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
18. Dror, I. E., Kassin, S. M., & Kukucka, J. (2013). New application of psychology to law: Improving forensic evidence and expert witness contributions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 78-81.
19. Dror, I. E., Peron, A. E., Hind, S.-L., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 799-809. doi:10.1002/acp.1130
20. Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences shape visual perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 33-37. doi:10.1177/0963721412463693
21. Elaad, E. (2013). Psychological contamination in forensic decisions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 76-77.
22. Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279-292. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960070405
23. Findley, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 291-397.
24. Found, B., & Ganas, J. (in press). The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Science & Justice.
25. Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1-97.
26. Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges' nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 590-598. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 82.4.590
27. Hampikian, G., West, E., & Akselrod, O. (2011). The genetics of innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA exonerations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12, 97-120. doi:10.1146/annurevgenom- 082509-141715
28. Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122-126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x
29. Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. A. J., & Dailey, E. M. (2008). A survey of people's attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 555-584. doi:10.1002/bsl.826
30. Hill, C., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2008). The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 357-371. doi:10.1348/135532507X238682
31. Johnson, M. K., Bush, J. G., & Mitchell, K. J. (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people's memories. Social Cognition, 16, 199-224. doi:10.1521/soco.1998.16.2.199
32. Kam, M., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (1997). Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 778-786. doi:10.1520/JFS14207J
33. Kam, M., & Lin, E. (2003). Writer identification using hand-printed and non-hand-printed questioned documents. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 1391-1395.
34. Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431-445. doi:10.1037/a0028212
35. Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science, 23, 41-45. doi:10.1177/0956797611422918
36. Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 42-52.
37. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203. doi:10.1023/A:1022599230598
38. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the "fundamental difference" hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484. doi:10.1023/A: 1024871622490
39. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-1054. doi:10.1177/01461672972310005
40. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27-46. doi:10.1023/A:1024814009769
41. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 211-228. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
42. Kristjansson, A., & Campana, G. (2010). Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 72, 5-18. doi:10.3758/APP.72.1.5
43. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526, U.S. 137 (1999).
44. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
45. Lange, N. D., Thomas, R. P., Dana, J., & Dawes, R. M. (2011). Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 178-187. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4
46. Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 41-75. doi:10.1080/08856559.1935.10533144
47. Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 381-399. doi:10.1002/bsl.872
48. Lynch, M. (2003). God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic evidence. Endeavor, 27, 93-97. doi:10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00068-1
49. McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 436-453. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1
50. Miller, L. S. (1984). Bias among forensic document examiners: A need for procedural changes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 407-411.
51. Miller, L. S. (1987). Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hair. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 157-163. doi:10.1007/BF01040448
52. Mnookin, J. L., Cole, S. A., Dror, I. E., Fisher, B. A. J., Houck, M. M., Inman, K., ⋯ Stoney, D. A. (2011). The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review, 58, 725-779.
53. Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 452-465. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x
54. National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
55. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2. 2.175
56. O'Brien, B. (2009). Prime suspect: An examination of factors that aggravate and counteract confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 315-334. doi:10.1037/a0017881
57. Paolacci, J., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1626226
58. Reese, E. J. (2012). Techniques for mitigating cognitive biases in fingerprint identification. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1252-1290.
59. Risinger, D. M. (2007). Cases involving the reliability of handwriting identification expertise since the decision in Daubert. Tulsa Law Review, 43, 477-596.
60. Risinger, D. M. (2009). The NAS report on forensic science: A glass nine-tenths full (this is about the other tenth). Published online July 21, 2009 at the Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract-1437276
61. Risinger, D. M., & Saks, M. J. (1996). Science and nonscience in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Review, 82, 21-74.
62. Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1-56. doi:10.2307/3481305
63. Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892-895. doi:10.1126/science. 1111565
64. Saks, M. J., Risinger, D. M., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W. C. (2003). Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice, 43, 77-90. doi:10.1016/S1355-0306(03)71747-X
65. Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 511-586.
66. Simon, D. (2011). The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 143-223.
67. Simon, D. (2012). In doubt: The psychology of the criminal justice process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard. 9780674065116
68. Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368-1377. doi:10.1177/01461672012710012
69. Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469-492. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7
70. U.S. v. Buck, 1987 WL 19300 (S. D. N. Y.). (1987).
71. U.S. v. Hines, 55, F. Supp. 2d 62 (1999).
72. U.S. v. Paul, 175 F. 3d 906, (1999).
73. U.S. v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 (1995).
74. Wells, G. L., Wilford, M. M., & Smalarz, L. (2013). 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 & Cognition, 2, 53-55.