Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T11:22:45.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Forensic Science Decision-Making

Expertise Lends Both Skills and Vulnerabilities

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Bethany Growns  and
Tess M.S. Neal
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on the expertise of forensic science practitioners who make legally relevant decisions from both a skills-based and vulnerabilities-based perspective. We bring together research relevant to forensic examiners’ decision-making to inform the development of empirically based solutions for some of the issues we raise. We begin by describing a general model of bias in judgment, explaining how experts can be vulnerable to systematic errors and biases in decision-making, but also how expertise can protect against bias in some circumstances. We then explore the cognitive mechanisms underpinning forensic science expertise to explore the unique abilities examiners develop, the important role of these unique abilities in forensic science decision-making, and their implications for selection and training. We describe what can be done now to enhance experts’ strengths and mitigate the negative effects of bias. Finally, we conclude by exploring how future research can continue to explore the unique abilities and vulnerabilities in forensic science decision-making to enhance professional performance.

Keywords

forensic sciencecognitive mechanismsbiastrainingexpertise
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 193 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, A. (2015). A history of forensic science: British beginnings in the twentieth century. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almazrouei, M. A., Dror, I. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2020). Organizational and human factors affecting forensic decision‐making: Workplace stress and feedback. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(6), 1968–1977. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14542.Google Scholar
Attneave, F. (1953). Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057955.Google Scholar
Balsdon, T., Summersby, S., Kemp, R. I., & White, D. (2018). Improving face identification with specialist teams. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0114-7.Google Scholar
Bindemann, M., Fysh, M., Cross, K., & Watts, R. (2016). Matching faces against the clock. I-Perception, 7(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516672219.Google Scholar
Bird, C., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2010). Forensic document examiners’ skill in distinguishing between natural and disguised handwriting behaviors. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(5), 1291–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01456.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, N. D., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2009). Saliency, attention, and visual search: An information theoretic approach. Journal of Vision, 9(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.3.5.Google Scholar
Busey, T. A., & Dror, I. E. (2011). Special abilities and vulnerabilities in forensic expertise. In McRoberts, A. (Ed.), The fingerprint sourcebook (pp. 1–23). US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Busey, T. A., Heise, N., Hicklin, R. A., Ulery, B. T., & Buscaglia, J. (2021). Characterizing missed identifications and errors in latent fingerprint comparisons using eye-tracking data. PLoS One, 16(5), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251674.Google Scholar
Busey, T., Nikolov, D., Yu, C., Emerick, B., & Vanderkolk, J. (2016). Characterizing human expertise using computational metrics of feature diagnosticity in a pattern matching task. Cognitive Science, 41, 1717–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12452.Google Scholar
Busey, T., Swofford, H. J., Vanderkolk, J., & Emerick, B. (2015). The impact of fatigue on latent print examinations as revealed by behavioral and eye gaze testing. Forensic Science International, 251, 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.03.028.Google Scholar
Busey, T. A., & Vanderkolk, J. R. (2005). Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research, 45(4), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.08.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busey, T., Yu, C., Wyatte, D., et al. (2011). Consistency and variability among latent print examiners as revealed by eye tracking methodologies. Journal of Forensic Identification, 61(1), 60–91.Google Scholar
Carrington, T. (2015). Mississippi innocence: The convictions and exonerations of Levon Books and Kennedy Brewer and the failure of the American promise. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 28, 123–175.Google Scholar
Cassidy, M. F., & Buede, D. (2009). Does the accuracy of expert judgment comply with common sense? Caveat emptor. Management Decision, 47(3), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910946714.Google Scholar
Chan, L. K., & Hayward, W. G. (2013). Visual search. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 415–429.Google Scholar
Charness, N., Tuffiash, M., Krampe, R., Reingold, E., & Vasyukova, E. (2005). The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1106.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2.Google Scholar
Cole, S. A. (2004). History of fingerprint pattern recognition. In Ratha, N. & Bolle, R. (Eds.), Automatic fingerprint recognition systems (pp. 1–25). Springer.Google Scholar
Correll, J., Hudson, S. M., Guillermo, S. & Ma, D. S. (2014). The police officer’s dilemma: A decade of research on racial bias in the decision to shoot. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(5), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12099.Google Scholar
Crispino, F., Ribaux, O., Houck, M., & Margot, P. (2011). Forensic science – A true science? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2–3), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2011.555416.Google Scholar
Davis, B. (1985). A history of forensic medicine. Medico-Legal Journal, 53(1), 9–23.Google Scholar
de Jongh, A., Lubach, A. R., Lie Kwie, S. L., & Alberink, I. (2019). Measuring the rarity of fingerprints patterns in the Dutch population using an extended classification set. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13838.Google Scholar
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003.Google Scholar
Drew, T., Vo, M. L. H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). The invisible gorilla strikes again: Sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1848–1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613479386.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92(2), 7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51(4), 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004.Google Scholar
Dyer, A. G., Found, B., & Rogers, D. (2006). Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(6), 1397–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00269.x.Google Scholar
Earwaker, H., Nakhaeizadeh, S., Smit, N. M., & Morgan, R. M. (2019). A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: A six phased approach. Science & Justice, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.006.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2016). Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712715613470.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., et al. (2017). Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Science & Justice, 57(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population: A response to criticisms. Intelligence, 45, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.12.001.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser-Mackenzie, P. A., Dror, I. E., & Wertheim, K. (2013). Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. Science & Justice, 53(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.002.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2011). When two become one: Temporally dynamic integration of the face and voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.018.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. O., Kelley, S., Murrie, D. C., & Dror, I. E. (2019). What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making? Science & Justice, 59(5), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.Google Scholar
Growns, B., Dunn, J. D., Helm, R., Towler, A., & Kukucka, J. (2022a). The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices. PLoS One, 17(8), e0272338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272338.Google Scholar
Growns, B., Dunn, J. D., Mattijssen, E. J., Quigley-McBride, A., & Towler, A. (2022b). Match me if you can: Evidence for a domain-general visual comparison ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02044-2.Google Scholar
Growns, B., Gough, M., & Helm, R. K. (2023). Generalisability and stability of visual comparison ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4127.Google Scholar
Growns, B., & Kukucka, J. (2021). The prevalence effect in fingerprint identification: Match and non‐match base‐rates impact misses and false alarms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3800.Google Scholar
Growns, B., & Martire, K. A. (2020a). Forensic feature-comparison expertise: Statistical learning facilitates visual comparison performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000266.Google Scholar
Growns, B., & Martire, K. A. (2020b). Human factors in forensic science: The cognitive mechanisms that underlie forensic feature-comparison expertise. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.05.001.Google Scholar
Growns, B., Mattijssen, E. J., Salerno, J. M., et al. (2022). Finding the perfect match: Fingerprint expertise facilitates statistical learning and visual comparison decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(2), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000422.Google Scholar
Growns, B., Towler, A., Dunn, J. D., et al. (2022). Statistical feature training improves fingerprint matching accuracy. Cognitive Research: Principles & Implications, 7(60), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00413-6.Google Scholar
Girvan, E. J. (2016). Wise restraints? Learning legal rules, not standards, reduces the effects of stereotypes in legal decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000068.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
Hicklin, R. A., Ulery, B. T., Busey, T. A., Roberts, M. A., & Buscaglia, J. (2019). Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0160-9.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. E., Vastrick, T. W., Boulanger, M., & Schuetzner, E. (2017). Measuring the frequency occurrence of handwriting and handprinting characteristics. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62(1), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13248.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., Evans, D., et al. (2016). “Ideology” or “situation sense”? An experimental investigation of motivated reasoning and professional judgment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(349), 349–439.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755.Google Scholar
Kam, M., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (1997). Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(5), 778–786.Google Scholar
Kam, M., Gummadidala, K., Fielding, G., & Conn, R. (2001). Signature authentication by forensic document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(4), 884–888.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.Google Scholar
Kelley, L. T., Coderre-Ball, A. M., Dalgarno, N., McKeown, S., & Egan, R. (2020). Continuing professional development for primary care providers in palliative and end-of-life care: A systematic review. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 23(8), 1104–1124. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2020.0060.Google Scholar
Kobus, H., Houck, M., Speaker, P., Riley, R., & Witt, T. (2011). Managing performance in the forensic sciences: Expectations in light of limited budgets. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 2(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2011.564271.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., & McQuiston, D. E. (2016). Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000103.Google Scholar
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385.Google Scholar
Krane, D. E., Ford, S., Gilder, J. R., et al. (2008). Sequential unmasking: A means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 1006–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00787.x.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Only one? The default interventionist perspective as a unimodel – Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483477.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023709.Google Scholar
Langenburg, G., Champod, C., & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x.Google Scholar
Martire, K. A. (2018). Clear communication through clear purpose: Understanding statistical statements made by forensic scientists. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(6), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1439101.Google Scholar
Martire, K. A., Growns, B., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). What do the experts know? Calibration, precision, and the wisdom of crowds among forensic handwriting experts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2346–2355. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1448-3.Google Scholar
Mattijssen, E. J. A. T., Kerkhoff, W., Berger, C. E., Dror, I. E., & Stoel, R. D. (2016). Implementing context information management in forensic casework: Minimizing contextual bias in firearms examination. Science & Justice, 56(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.11.004.Google Scholar
Mattijssen, E. J. A. T., Witteman, C. L. M., Berger, C. E. H., & Stoel, R. D. (2020a). Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study. Science & Justice, 60(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005.Google Scholar
Mattijssen, E. J. A. T., Witteman, C. L. M., Berger, C. E. H., & Stoel, R. D. (2020b). Assessing the frequency of general fingerprint patterns by fingerprint examiners and novices. Forensic Science International, 313, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110347.Google Scholar
Mattijssen, E. J., Witteman, C. L., Berger, C. E., et al. (2020c). Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer‐based comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14557.Google Scholar
Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4.Google Scholar
Mejia, R., Cuellar, M., & Salyards, J. (2020). Implementing blind proficiency testing in forensic laboratories: Motivation, obstacles, and recommendations. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2, 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.09.002.Google Scholar
Miller, L. S. (1984). Bias among forensic document examiners: A need for procedural change. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 12(4), 407–411.Google Scholar
Mnookin, J. L. (2010). The courts, the NAS, and the future of forensic science. Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 10.Google Scholar
Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., MacLean, N., Morgan, R., & Murrie, D. (2017). Robust evidence of confirmation bias in forensic psychologists’ diagnostic reasoning. Annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Martire, K. A., Johan, J. L., Mathers, E. M., & Otto, R. K. (2022). The law meets psychological expertise: Eight best practices to improve forensic psychological assessment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 18, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050420-010148.Google Scholar
Osborne, N. K., Taylor, M. C., Healey, M., & Zajac, R. (2016). Bloodstain pattern classification: Accuracy, effect of contextual information and the role of analyst characteristics. Science & Justice, 56(2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.12.005.Google Scholar
Osborne, N. K., Woods, S., Kieser, J., & Zajac, R. (2014). Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Science & Justice, 54(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. J., Yates, A. N., Hu, Y., et al. (2018). Face recognition accuracy of forensic examiners, super-recognizers, and face recognition algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(24), 6171–6176. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721355115.Google Scholar
Pierce, M. L., & Cook, L. J. (2020). Development and implementation of an effective blind proficiency testing program. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(3), 809–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14269.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2016). Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Quigley-McBride, A., Dror, I. E., Roy, T., Garrett, B. L., & Kukucka, J. (2022). A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 4, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100216.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. J., Noyes, E., Dowsett, A. J., Jenkins, R., & Burton, A. M. (2016). Face recognition by metropolitan police super-recognisers. PLoS One, 11(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150036.Google Scholar
Robson, S. G., Searston, R. A., Edmond, G., McCarthy, D. J., & Tangen, J. M. (2020). An expert–novice comparison of feature choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 984–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3676.Google Scholar
Robson, S. G., Tangen, J. M., & Searston, R. A. (2021). The effect of expertise, target usefulness and image structure on visual search. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00282-5.Google Scholar
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017a). Expertise with unfamiliar objects is flexible to changes in task but not changes in class. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178403.Google Scholar
Searston, R. A., & Tangen, J. M. (2017b). The emergence of perceptual expertise with fingerprints over time. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.08.006.Google Scholar
Siegelman, N., Bogaerts, L., Christiansen, M. H., & Frost, R. (2017). Towards a theory of individual differences in statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1711). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0059.Google Scholar
Sneyd, D., Schreiber Compo, N., Rivard, J., et al. (2020). Quality of laypersons’ assessment of forensically relevant stimuli. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(5), 1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14495.Google Scholar
Stevenage, S. V., & Bennett, A. (2017). A biased opinion: Demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results. Forensic Science International, 276, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009.Google Scholar
Tangen, J. M., Kent, K. M., & Searston, R. A. (2020). Collective intelligence in fingerprint analysis. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00223-8.Google Scholar
Thielgen, M. M., Schade, S., & Bosé, C. (2021). Face processing in police service: The relationship between laboratory-based assessment of face processing abilities and performance in a real-world identity matching task. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00317-x.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2018). Developing effective methods for addressing contextual bias in forensic science. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/developing-effective-methods-addressing-contextual-bias-forensic-science.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. B., & Tangen, J. M. (2014). The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching: Experts can do a lot with a little. PLoS One, 9(12), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114759.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & McCarthy, D. (2013). Expertise in fingerprint identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(6), 1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12203.Google Scholar
Towler, A., Kemp, R. I., Burton, A. M., et al. (2019). Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? PLoS One, 14(2), e0211037. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211037.Google Scholar
Towler, A., Keshwa, M., Ton, B., Kemp, R. I., & White, D. (2021). Diagnostic feature training improves face matching accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(8), 1288–1298. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000972.Google Scholar
Towler, A., White, D., Ballantyne, K., et al. (2018). Are forensic scientists experts? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.010.Google Scholar
Towler, A., White, D., & Kemp, R. I. (2017). Evaluating the feature comparison strategy for forensic face identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000108.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7733–7738. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108.Google Scholar
Varga, A. L., & Hamburger, K. (2014). Beyond type 1 vs. type 2 processing: The tri-dimensional way. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00993.Google Scholar
Vogelsang, M. D., Palmeri, T. J., & Busey, T. A. (2017). Holistic processing of fingerprints by expert forensic examiners. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0051-x.Google Scholar
Walmsley, S., & Gilbey, A. (2016). Cognitive biases in visual pilots’ weather-related decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3225.Google Scholar
West, T. V., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022936.Google Scholar
White, D., Jonathon Phillips, P., Hahn, C. A., Hill, M., & O’Toole, A. J. (2015). Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1292.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×