Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base-rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non-medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision making.
Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding ... more Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding about workplace stress and feedback. These organizational and human factors can potentially impact forensic science judgments. In this study, 150 practicing forensic examiners from one laboratory were surveyed about their experiences of workplace stress, and the explicit and implicit feedback they receive. Forensic examiners reported that their high stress levels originated more from workplace-related factors (management and/or supervision, backlogs , and the pressure to do many cases) than from personal related factors (family, medical, and/or financial). The findings showed that a few (8%) of the forensic examiners sometimes felt strong implicit feedback about what conclusions were expected from them and that some (14%) also strongly felt that they were more appreciated when they helped to solve a case (e.g., by reaching a "match" as opposed to an "inconclusive" conclusion). Differences were found when comparing workplace stress and feedback levels across three core forensic science fields (forensic biology, chemistry, and latent prints) and across career stages (early, mid, and late). Gaining insights into the stress factors within a workplace and explicit and implicit feedback has implications for developing policies to improve the well-being, motivation, and performance of forensic examiners.
Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to “bad apples”, experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.
Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether i... more Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether improvement is needed, measuring whether interventions are effective, as well as for providing transparency. However, the flurry of activities in establishing error rates for the forensic sciences has largely overlooked some fundamental issues that make error rates a problematic construct and limit the ability to obtain a meaningful error rate. These include knowing the ground truth, establishing appropriate databases, determining what counts as an error, characterizing what is an acceptable error rate, ecological validity, and transparency within the adversarial legal system. Without addressing these practical and theoretical challenges, the very notion of a meaningful error rate is limited.
The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom ... more The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom from bias. Meeting these requirements for implicit cognitive bias is not a simple matter. In this article, we address these international standards, specifically focusing on evaluating and mitigating the risk to impartiality, and quality assurance checks, so as to meet accreditation program requirements. We cover their meaning to management as well as to practitioners, addressing how these issues of impartiality and bias relate to forensic work, and how one can effectively evaluate and mitigate those risks. We then elaborate on specific quality assurance policies and checks, and identify when corrective action may be appropriate. These measures will not only serve to meet ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 requirements, but also enhance forensic work and decision-making.
What will forensic science look like in the future? Forensic science has a promising future as ne... more What will forensic science look like in the future? Forensic science has a promising future as new methods, technologies, and scientific advancements create new possibilities that have not yet been imagined. New discoveries can create incremental evolutionary changes or revolutionary changes that will reshape the face of forensic science all together. We cannot predict the innovations and new technologies that will come to be, but we can certainly expect that they will happen and that they will create new possibilities for forensic science. In this piece, we engage in a thought exercise to consider and present a view of what forensic science may look like in the future.
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 2019
Legal disclosure issues have predominantly focused upon what evidence the prosecution provided or... more Legal disclosure issues have predominantly focused upon what evidence the prosecution provided or withheld from the defence. In this paper we expand the concept of disclosure to wider contexts in which disclosure failures may result in miscarriages of justice. We introduce a conceptual model of ‘forensic disclosure’ which addresses what information should be disclosed to forensic examiners, as well as what information should be disclosed by forensic examiners. This paper presents a holistic overview of the dynamic interactions of four categories of stakeholders: forensic services, investigation, legal, and external stakeholders. We discuss the effective implementation of the forensic disclosure model by addressing five questions: when? what? how? who? and why? should information be best given to, and by, forensic examiners in order to increase the quality of forensic decision making and to minimise bias.
Digital forensics is an important and growing forensic domain. Research on miscarriages of justic... more Digital forensics is an important and growing forensic domain. Research on miscarriages of justice and misleading evidence, as well as various inquires in the UK and the US, have highlighted human error as an issue within forensic science. This has led to increased attention to the sources of cognitive bias and potential countermeasures within many forensic disciplines. However, the area of digital forensics has yet to pay sufficient attention to this issue. The main goal of this article is to contribute to a more scientifically sound digital forensics domain by addressing the issues of cognitive bias as a source of error. In this paper we present an analysis of seven sources of cognitive and human error specifically within the digital forensics process, and discuss relevant countermeasures. We conclude that although some cognitive and bias issues are very similar across forensic domains, others are different and dependent on the specific characteristic of the domain in question, such as digital forensics. There is a need for new directions in research with regard to cognitive and human factors in digital forensics.
Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. I... more Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. It is a powerful tool that can help convict the guilty and avoid wrongful conviction of the innocent. Unfortunately, flaws in forensic evidence are increasingly becoming apparent. Assessments of forensic science have too often focused only on the data and the underlying science, as if they exist in isolation, without sufficiently addressing the process by which forensic experts evaluate and interpret the evidence.
Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and... more Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and interpretation. Currently, seven sources of bias have been identified that may affect forensic decision making with roots in human nature; environment, culture, and experience; and case specific information. Most of the literature and research on cognitive bias in forensic science has focused on patterned evidence; however, forensic DNA testing is not immune to bias, especially when subjective interpretation is involved. DNA testing can be strengthened by recognizing the existence of bias, evaluating where it influences decision making, and, when applicable, implementing practices to reduce or control its effects. Elements that may improve forensic decision making regarding bias include cognitively informed education and training, quality assurance procedures, review processes , analysis and interpretation, and context management of irrelevant information. Although bias exists, reliable results often can be (and have been) produced. However, at times bias can (and has) impacted the interpretation of DNA results negatively. Therefore, being aware of the dangers of bias and implementing measures to control its potential impact should be considered. Measures and procedures that handicap the workings of the crime laboratory or add little value to improving the operation are not advocated, but simple yet effective measures are suggested. This article is meant to raise awareness of cognitive bias contamination in forensic DNA testing and to give laboratories possible pathways to make sound decisions to address its influences.
Forensic science has existed for many decades without due attention being given to the important ... more Forensic science has existed for many decades without due attention being given to the important role of human cognition in forensic work. Without such attention, forensic examiners were believed to be objective and immune to bias. This past decade we have seen an impressive shift in forensic science, now taking human factors into account. One important element in cognitive forensics is to minimize potential bias in forensic work. To accomplish this we must first understand the different sources of bias and then develop and deploy counter measures whenever possible. In this paper, I go through seven sources of bias, some arising from the mere fact that we are humans, other originating from training, motivations and organizational factors (and other general sources of bias), and others arising from the specific case at hand. Bias is then placed within the wider context of human performance, showing the hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) that distinguishes between observations and conclusions in decision making, between effects that are due to bias and those that do not arise from bias, and when performance varies among examiners and when it varies within the same examiner. A cognitive informed approach can substantially improve and contribute to forensic science.
Expert performance can be quantified by examining reliability and biasability between and within ... more Expert performance can be quantified by examining reliability and biasability between and within experts, and teasing apart their observations from their conclusions. I utilize these parameters to develop a Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP) that includes eight distinct levels. Using this hierarchy I evaluate and quantify the performance of forensic experts, a highly specialized domain that plays a critical role in the criminal justice system. Evaluating expert performance within HEP enables the identification of weaknesses in expert performance, and enables the comparison of experts across domains. HEP also provides theoretical and applied insights into expertise.
In this paper we employ meta-analytic procedures and estimate effect sizes indexing the degree of... more In this paper we employ meta-analytic procedures and estimate effect sizes indexing the degree of reliability and biasability of forensic experts. The data are based on within-expert comparisons, whereby the same expert unknowingly makes judgments on the same data at different times. This allows us to take robust measurements and conduct analyses that compare variances within the same experts, and thus to carefully quantify the degree of consistency and objectivity that underlie expert performance and decision making. To achieve consistency, experts must be reliable, at least in the very basic sense that an expert makes the same decision when the same data are presented in the same circumstances, and thus be consistent with themselves. To achieve objectivity, experts must focus only on the data and ignore irrelevant information, and thus be unbiasable by extraneous context. The analyses show that experts are not totally reliable nor are they unbiasable. These findings are based on fingerprint experts decision making, but because this domain is so well established, they apply equally well (if not more) to all other less established forensic domains.
The objectivity of forensic science decision making has received increased attention and scrutiny... more The objectivity of forensic science decision making has received increased attention and scrutiny. However, there are only a few published studies experimentally addressing the potential for contextual bias. Because of the esteem of DNA evidence, it is important to study and assess the impact of subjectivity and bias on DNA mixture interpretation. The study reported here presents empirical data suggesting that DNA mixture interpretation is subjective. When 17 North American expert DNA examiners were asked for their interpretation of data from an adjudicated criminal case in that jurisdiction, they produced inconsistent interpretations. Furthermore, the majority of 'context free' experts disagreed with the laboratory's pre-trial conclusions, suggesting that the extraneous context of the criminal case may have influenced the interpretation of the DNA evidence, thereby showing a biasing effect of contextual information in DNA mixture interpretation.
Medical errors are an inevitable outcome of the human cognitive system working within the environ... more Medical errors are an inevitable outcome of the human cognitive system working within the environment and demands of practicing medicine. Training can play a pivotal role in minimizing error, but the prevailing training is not as effective because it directly focuses on error reduction. Based on an understanding of cognitive architecture and how the brain processes information, a new approach is suggested: focusing training on error recovery. This entails specific training in error detection and error mitigation. Such training will not only enable better responses when errors occur, but it is also a more effective way to achieve error reduction. The suggested design for error recovery training is to begin with detecting errors in others. Starting off with highly visible and even exaggerated errors, and advancing to more challenging detections and finally requiring to detect errors within oneself rather than in others. The error mitigation training starts with providing the learners with the correct remedial actions (after they have detected the error). With training, the learners are required to select the appropriate actions within multiple choice alternatives, and eventually are required to generate the appropriate remedial responses themselves. These can be used for instruction as well as for assessment purposes. Time pressure, distractions, competitions and other elements are included so as to make the training more challenging and interactive.
Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 2013
The growing understanding of the central role of human factors and cognition in forensic science ... more The growing understanding of the central role of human factors and cognition in forensic science has paved the way to develop and implement practical solutions to enhance work in forensic laboratories. Cognitive insights provide relatively simply practical solutions to minimize bias by increasing examiners' independence of mind. These derive from understanding the spectrum of biases-not only those that can arise from knowing irrelevant case information, but also biases that emerge from base rate regularities, working 'backwards' from the suspect to the evidence, and from the working environment itself. Cognitive science's contribution to forensic work goes beyond fighting bias, it suggests ways to enhance examiners' work with technology (distributed cognition), as well as how best to select candidates during recruitment. Taking human cognition into account, such as with a triage approach and case managers, can enhance the quality and effectiveness of the work carried out by forensic examiners. This paper details practical solutions that emerge from a cognitive perspective that understand human expertise and performance. Such cognitively informed approaches should be integrated within forensic work on an ongoing basis.
Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base-rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non-medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision making.
Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding ... more Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding about workplace stress and feedback. These organizational and human factors can potentially impact forensic science judgments. In this study, 150 practicing forensic examiners from one laboratory were surveyed about their experiences of workplace stress, and the explicit and implicit feedback they receive. Forensic examiners reported that their high stress levels originated more from workplace-related factors (management and/or supervision, backlogs , and the pressure to do many cases) than from personal related factors (family, medical, and/or financial). The findings showed that a few (8%) of the forensic examiners sometimes felt strong implicit feedback about what conclusions were expected from them and that some (14%) also strongly felt that they were more appreciated when they helped to solve a case (e.g., by reaching a "match" as opposed to an "inconclusive" conclusion). Differences were found when comparing workplace stress and feedback levels across three core forensic science fields (forensic biology, chemistry, and latent prints) and across career stages (early, mid, and late). Gaining insights into the stress factors within a workplace and explicit and implicit feedback has implications for developing policies to improve the well-being, motivation, and performance of forensic examiners.
Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to “bad apples”, experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.
Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether i... more Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether improvement is needed, measuring whether interventions are effective, as well as for providing transparency. However, the flurry of activities in establishing error rates for the forensic sciences has largely overlooked some fundamental issues that make error rates a problematic construct and limit the ability to obtain a meaningful error rate. These include knowing the ground truth, establishing appropriate databases, determining what counts as an error, characterizing what is an acceptable error rate, ecological validity, and transparency within the adversarial legal system. Without addressing these practical and theoretical challenges, the very notion of a meaningful error rate is limited.
The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom ... more The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom from bias. Meeting these requirements for implicit cognitive bias is not a simple matter. In this article, we address these international standards, specifically focusing on evaluating and mitigating the risk to impartiality, and quality assurance checks, so as to meet accreditation program requirements. We cover their meaning to management as well as to practitioners, addressing how these issues of impartiality and bias relate to forensic work, and how one can effectively evaluate and mitigate those risks. We then elaborate on specific quality assurance policies and checks, and identify when corrective action may be appropriate. These measures will not only serve to meet ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 requirements, but also enhance forensic work and decision-making.
What will forensic science look like in the future? Forensic science has a promising future as ne... more What will forensic science look like in the future? Forensic science has a promising future as new methods, technologies, and scientific advancements create new possibilities that have not yet been imagined. New discoveries can create incremental evolutionary changes or revolutionary changes that will reshape the face of forensic science all together. We cannot predict the innovations and new technologies that will come to be, but we can certainly expect that they will happen and that they will create new possibilities for forensic science. In this piece, we engage in a thought exercise to consider and present a view of what forensic science may look like in the future.
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 2019
Legal disclosure issues have predominantly focused upon what evidence the prosecution provided or... more Legal disclosure issues have predominantly focused upon what evidence the prosecution provided or withheld from the defence. In this paper we expand the concept of disclosure to wider contexts in which disclosure failures may result in miscarriages of justice. We introduce a conceptual model of ‘forensic disclosure’ which addresses what information should be disclosed to forensic examiners, as well as what information should be disclosed by forensic examiners. This paper presents a holistic overview of the dynamic interactions of four categories of stakeholders: forensic services, investigation, legal, and external stakeholders. We discuss the effective implementation of the forensic disclosure model by addressing five questions: when? what? how? who? and why? should information be best given to, and by, forensic examiners in order to increase the quality of forensic decision making and to minimise bias.
Digital forensics is an important and growing forensic domain. Research on miscarriages of justic... more Digital forensics is an important and growing forensic domain. Research on miscarriages of justice and misleading evidence, as well as various inquires in the UK and the US, have highlighted human error as an issue within forensic science. This has led to increased attention to the sources of cognitive bias and potential countermeasures within many forensic disciplines. However, the area of digital forensics has yet to pay sufficient attention to this issue. The main goal of this article is to contribute to a more scientifically sound digital forensics domain by addressing the issues of cognitive bias as a source of error. In this paper we present an analysis of seven sources of cognitive and human error specifically within the digital forensics process, and discuss relevant countermeasures. We conclude that although some cognitive and bias issues are very similar across forensic domains, others are different and dependent on the specific characteristic of the domain in question, such as digital forensics. There is a need for new directions in research with regard to cognitive and human factors in digital forensics.
Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. I... more Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. It is a powerful tool that can help convict the guilty and avoid wrongful conviction of the innocent. Unfortunately, flaws in forensic evidence are increasingly becoming apparent. Assessments of forensic science have too often focused only on the data and the underlying science, as if they exist in isolation, without sufficiently addressing the process by which forensic experts evaluate and interpret the evidence.
Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and... more Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and interpretation. Currently, seven sources of bias have been identified that may affect forensic decision making with roots in human nature; environment, culture, and experience; and case specific information. Most of the literature and research on cognitive bias in forensic science has focused on patterned evidence; however, forensic DNA testing is not immune to bias, especially when subjective interpretation is involved. DNA testing can be strengthened by recognizing the existence of bias, evaluating where it influences decision making, and, when applicable, implementing practices to reduce or control its effects. Elements that may improve forensic decision making regarding bias include cognitively informed education and training, quality assurance procedures, review processes , analysis and interpretation, and context management of irrelevant information. Although bias exists, reliable results often can be (and have been) produced. However, at times bias can (and has) impacted the interpretation of DNA results negatively. Therefore, being aware of the dangers of bias and implementing measures to control its potential impact should be considered. Measures and procedures that handicap the workings of the crime laboratory or add little value to improving the operation are not advocated, but simple yet effective measures are suggested. This article is meant to raise awareness of cognitive bias contamination in forensic DNA testing and to give laboratories possible pathways to make sound decisions to address its influences.
Forensic science has existed for many decades without due attention being given to the important ... more Forensic science has existed for many decades without due attention being given to the important role of human cognition in forensic work. Without such attention, forensic examiners were believed to be objective and immune to bias. This past decade we have seen an impressive shift in forensic science, now taking human factors into account. One important element in cognitive forensics is to minimize potential bias in forensic work. To accomplish this we must first understand the different sources of bias and then develop and deploy counter measures whenever possible. In this paper, I go through seven sources of bias, some arising from the mere fact that we are humans, other originating from training, motivations and organizational factors (and other general sources of bias), and others arising from the specific case at hand. Bias is then placed within the wider context of human performance, showing the hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) that distinguishes between observations and conclusions in decision making, between effects that are due to bias and those that do not arise from bias, and when performance varies among examiners and when it varies within the same examiner. A cognitive informed approach can substantially improve and contribute to forensic science.
Expert performance can be quantified by examining reliability and biasability between and within ... more Expert performance can be quantified by examining reliability and biasability between and within experts, and teasing apart their observations from their conclusions. I utilize these parameters to develop a Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP) that includes eight distinct levels. Using this hierarchy I evaluate and quantify the performance of forensic experts, a highly specialized domain that plays a critical role in the criminal justice system. Evaluating expert performance within HEP enables the identification of weaknesses in expert performance, and enables the comparison of experts across domains. HEP also provides theoretical and applied insights into expertise.
In this paper we employ meta-analytic procedures and estimate effect sizes indexing the degree of... more In this paper we employ meta-analytic procedures and estimate effect sizes indexing the degree of reliability and biasability of forensic experts. The data are based on within-expert comparisons, whereby the same expert unknowingly makes judgments on the same data at different times. This allows us to take robust measurements and conduct analyses that compare variances within the same experts, and thus to carefully quantify the degree of consistency and objectivity that underlie expert performance and decision making. To achieve consistency, experts must be reliable, at least in the very basic sense that an expert makes the same decision when the same data are presented in the same circumstances, and thus be consistent with themselves. To achieve objectivity, experts must focus only on the data and ignore irrelevant information, and thus be unbiasable by extraneous context. The analyses show that experts are not totally reliable nor are they unbiasable. These findings are based on fingerprint experts decision making, but because this domain is so well established, they apply equally well (if not more) to all other less established forensic domains.
The objectivity of forensic science decision making has received increased attention and scrutiny... more The objectivity of forensic science decision making has received increased attention and scrutiny. However, there are only a few published studies experimentally addressing the potential for contextual bias. Because of the esteem of DNA evidence, it is important to study and assess the impact of subjectivity and bias on DNA mixture interpretation. The study reported here presents empirical data suggesting that DNA mixture interpretation is subjective. When 17 North American expert DNA examiners were asked for their interpretation of data from an adjudicated criminal case in that jurisdiction, they produced inconsistent interpretations. Furthermore, the majority of 'context free' experts disagreed with the laboratory's pre-trial conclusions, suggesting that the extraneous context of the criminal case may have influenced the interpretation of the DNA evidence, thereby showing a biasing effect of contextual information in DNA mixture interpretation.
Medical errors are an inevitable outcome of the human cognitive system working within the environ... more Medical errors are an inevitable outcome of the human cognitive system working within the environment and demands of practicing medicine. Training can play a pivotal role in minimizing error, but the prevailing training is not as effective because it directly focuses on error reduction. Based on an understanding of cognitive architecture and how the brain processes information, a new approach is suggested: focusing training on error recovery. This entails specific training in error detection and error mitigation. Such training will not only enable better responses when errors occur, but it is also a more effective way to achieve error reduction. The suggested design for error recovery training is to begin with detecting errors in others. Starting off with highly visible and even exaggerated errors, and advancing to more challenging detections and finally requiring to detect errors within oneself rather than in others. The error mitigation training starts with providing the learners with the correct remedial actions (after they have detected the error). With training, the learners are required to select the appropriate actions within multiple choice alternatives, and eventually are required to generate the appropriate remedial responses themselves. These can be used for instruction as well as for assessment purposes. Time pressure, distractions, competitions and other elements are included so as to make the training more challenging and interactive.
Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 2013
The growing understanding of the central role of human factors and cognition in forensic science ... more The growing understanding of the central role of human factors and cognition in forensic science has paved the way to develop and implement practical solutions to enhance work in forensic laboratories. Cognitive insights provide relatively simply practical solutions to minimize bias by increasing examiners' independence of mind. These derive from understanding the spectrum of biases-not only those that can arise from knowing irrelevant case information, but also biases that emerge from base rate regularities, working 'backwards' from the suspect to the evidence, and from the working environment itself. Cognitive science's contribution to forensic work goes beyond fighting bias, it suggests ways to enhance examiners' work with technology (distributed cognition), as well as how best to select candidates during recruitment. Taking human cognition into account, such as with a triage approach and case managers, can enhance the quality and effectiveness of the work carried out by forensic examiners. This paper details practical solutions that emerge from a cognitive perspective that understand human expertise and performance. Such cognitively informed approaches should be integrated within forensic work on an ongoing basis.
Uploads
Papers by Itiel Dror
Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base-rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non-medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision making.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to “bad apples”, experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.
the degree of consistency and objectivity that underlie expert performance and decision making. To achieve consistency, experts must be reliable, at least in the very basic sense that an expert makes the same decision when the same data are presented in the same circumstances, and thus be consistent with themselves. To achieve objectivity, experts must focus only on the data and ignore irrelevant information, and thus be unbiasable by extraneous context. The analyses show that experts are not totally reliable nor are they unbiasable. These findings are based on fingerprint experts decision making, but because this domain is so well established, they apply equally well (if not more) to all other less established forensic domains.
Forensic pathologists’ decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists’ decision making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists’ decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base-rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non-medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision making.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to “bad apples”, experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.
the degree of consistency and objectivity that underlie expert performance and decision making. To achieve consistency, experts must be reliable, at least in the very basic sense that an expert makes the same decision when the same data are presented in the same circumstances, and thus be consistent with themselves. To achieve objectivity, experts must focus only on the data and ignore irrelevant information, and thus be unbiasable by extraneous context. The analyses show that experts are not totally reliable nor are they unbiasable. These findings are based on fingerprint experts decision making, but because this domain is so well established, they apply equally well (if not more) to all other less established forensic domains.