The power of contextual effects in forensic anthropology: A study of biasability in the visual interpretations of trauma analysis on skeletal remains

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1177-1183

  Nakhaeizadeh, Sherry ^a   Hanson, Ian ^b   Dozzi, Nathalie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b International Commission on Missing Persons   (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

^c BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biasability; Contextual effects; Decision making; Forensic anthropology; Forensic science; Trauma assessment

Indexed keywords

BONE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INJURIES; INTERNET; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RANDOMIZATION; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

BONE AND BONES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; WOUNDS AND INJURIES;

EID: 84908314904     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12473     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice 2011;51:204-8.
2. Thompson WC, Cole SA. Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In: Costanzo M, Krauss D, Pezdek K, editors. Expert psychological testimony for the courts: New York. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, 2007;31-68.
3. Krane DE, Ford F, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci 2008;53(4):1006-7.
4. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2009.
5. Dror IE. Perception of risk and the decision to use force. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2007;1(3):265-72.
6. Dror IE, Frazer-Mackenzie PAF. Cognitive biases in human perception, judgment, and decision making: bridging theory and the real world. In: Rossmo K, editor. Criminal investigative failures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, 2008;55-70.
7. Schiffer B, Champod C. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualization. Forensic Sci Int 2007;167:116-20.
8. Charlton D, Frazer-Mackenzie PAF, Dror IE. Emotional experiences and motivating factors associated with fingerprint analysis. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(2):385-93.
9. Ask A, Granhag PA. Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 2005;2:43-63.
10. Cox M, Mays S. Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science. London, U.K.: Greenwitch Medical Media LTD, 2000.
11. Haglund WD, Sorg MH. Advances in forensic taphonomy - method, theory and archaeological perspective. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002.
12. Paine RR, Harpending HC. Effect of sample bias on paleodemographic fertility estimates. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998;105(2):231-40.
13. Galloway A, Simes SA, Haglund WD, France DL. The role of forensic anthropology in trauma analysis. In: Galloway A, editor. Broken bones: anthropological analysis of blunt force Trauma. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1999;5-31.
14. White TD, Folkens PA. The human bone manual. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.
15. Byers SN. Introduction to forensic anthropology, 3rd rev. edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc, 2005.
16. Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S, Carlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005;19:799-809.
17. Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 2006;156:74-8.
18. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS (introducing statistical methods series). 3rd rev. edn. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009.
19. Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif 2006;56(4):600-16.
20. Springer V. Expectancy effects in forensic evidence handling: social psychological perspectives. J Inst Justice Int Stud 2007;7:1-23.
21. Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J Forensic Sci 2008;53(4):900-3.
22. Wilson J, Herman NP, Juntz LM. Evaluation of stature estimation from the data base for forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(3):684-9.
23. Pickering RB, Bachman DC. The use of forensic anthropology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009.
24. Smay D, Armelagos G. Galileo wept: a critical assessment of the use of race in forensic anthropology. Transform Anthropol 2000;9(2):19-29.
25. Hiss J, Freund M, Kahana T. The forensic expert witness - an issue of competency. Forensic Sci Int 2007;168:89-94.