What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

Considering forensic science: individual differences,opposing expert testimony and juror decision making

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study argument skill and epistemological sophistication were included as measures of individual differences, whereas study two included scores on the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. In both studies participants were assigned to groups who heard: (1) no expert testimony, (2) prosecution expert testimony, or (3) prosecution and opposing expert testimony. Opposing expert testimony affected verdict choice, but this effect was mediated by perceptions of reliability of the initial forensic expert's method. There was no evidence for an effect on verdict or reliability ratings by argument skill or epistemology. In the second experiment, the same mediation effect was found, however scores on one subscale from the FEEBS and age also affected both verdict and methodological reliability. It was concluded that opposing expert testimony may inform jurors, but perceptions of the reliability of forensic evidence affect verdict, and age and bias towards forensic science influence perceptions of forensic evidence. Future research should investigate individual differences that may affect perception or bias towards forensic sciences under varying conditions of scientific reliability.     

Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation

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.     

Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength

The most widely accepted model of juror decision making acknowledges the importance of both the case-specific information presented in the courtroom, as well as the prior general knowledge and beliefs held by each juror. The studies presented in this paper investigated whether mock jurors could differentiate between evidence of varying strengths in the absence of case information and then followed on to determine the influence that case context (and therefore the story model) has on judgments made about the strength of forensic DNA evidence. The results illustrated that mock jurors correctly identified various strengths of evidence when it was not presented with case information; however, the perceived strength of evidence was significantly inflated when presented in the context of a criminal case, particularly when the evidence was of a weak or ambiguous standard. These findings are discussed in relation to the story model, and the potential implications for real juries.     

The Power of Contextual Effects in Forensic Anthropology: A Study of Biasability in the Visual Interpretations of Trauma Analysis on Skeletal Remains

The potential for contextual information to bias assessments in the forensic sciences has been demonstrated, in several forensic disiplines. In this paper, biasability potential within forensic anthropology was examined by analyzing the effects of external manipulations on judgments and decision‐making in visual trauma assessment. Three separate websites were created containing fourteen identical images. Participants were randomly assigned to one website. Each website provided different contextual information, to assess variation of interpretation of the same images between contexts. The results indicated a higher scoring of trauma identification responses for the Mass grave context. Furthermore, a significant biasing effect was detected in the interpretation of four images. Less experienced participants were more likely to indicate presence of trauma. This research demonstrates bias impact in forensic anthropological trauma assessments and highlights the importance of recognizing and limiting cognitive vulnerabilities that forensic anthropologists might bring to the analysis.     

Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook

In recent years, a number of studies have demonstrated that forensic examiners can be biased by task-irrelevant contextual information. However, concerns relating to methodological flaws and ecological validity attenuate how much the current body of knowledge can be applied to real-life operational settings. The current review takes a narrative approach to synthesizing the literature across forensic science. Further, the review considers three main issues: (i) primary research on contextual bias within forensic science; (ii) methodological criticisms of this research; (iii) an alternative perspective that task-irrelevant contextual information does not always lead to error. One suggestion for future research is outlined, which is that studies on contextual bias in forensic decisions should be conducted in collaboration between forensic scientists and cognitive psychologists. Only then can rigorous and ecological valid experiments be created that will be able to assess how task-irrelevant contextual information influences forensic analysis and judgments in operationally valid settings.     

Context effects and observer bias--implications for forensic odontology

Psychologists have long recognized the effects of contextual and extraneous information on decision making. Such information renders the subject susceptible to both motivational and cognitive bias; yet, it is difficult to assess the extent to which these influence forensic odontologists opinions as there have been no studies to date on this subject. This article explores the various types of contextual effects and biasing influences that potentially impact on the analysis of bitemarks in forensic odontology. It appears that the current practice of bitemark analysis is rich in sources of potentially biasing influences. In addition to the fundamental recognition that some form of bias is likely to exist, ways in which these should be minimized include: separation of the collection and analysis phases; limiting the amount of contextual information available to the odontologist responsible for the analysis; and ensuring that evidence that is ambiguous or of poor quality is identified as such prior to analysis.     

Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts

Abstract:  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.     

Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

我国政府决策的责任分析

决策是政府行使其管理职能的首要环节。近年来,我国政府在推进政府决策科学化、民主化的过程中,逐步建立起了政府公共决策的报告制度、评估制度等制度体系,取得了一定成效。但是,按照社会主义政治文明建设与和谐社会目标的要求,我国政府决策依然存在着一些问题。为了解决这些问题,更好地为社会主义市场经济建设和政治体制改革服务,构建政府决策的责任机制已势在必行。     

Metric forensic anthropology decisions: Reliability and biasability of sectioning-point-based sex estimates

Subjective decisions make human cognitive processes more susceptible to bias and error. Specifically, research indicates that additional context biases forensic anthropologists’ morphological analyses. To address whether metric analyses are also subject to bias, we conducted a pilot study in which 52 experienced osteologists measured a difficult-to-classify human femur, with or without additional contextual information. Using a metric sectioning-point sex-estimation method, participants provided a sex estimate for individual skeletal element(s) and, when given multiple elements, the combined skeletal assemblage. Control group participants (n = 24) measured only the femur. In addition to the femur, bias group participants (n = 28) either measured a female humerus and viewed a female-biasing photograph (n = 14) or measured a male humerus and viewed a male-biasing photograph (n = 14). We explored whether the experts in the different groups would differ in: (1) femoral measurements; (2) femoral sex-estimation conclusions; and (3) final sex-estimation conclusions for the skeletal assemblage. Although the femoral measurements and femoral sex estimates were comparable across groups, the overall sex estimates in the female-biased group were impacted by contextual information—differing from both the control and male-biased groups (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that cognitive bias can occur even in metric sex-estimation conclusions. Specifically, this occurred when the metric data and single-element sex estimates were synthesized into an overall estimate. Thus, our results suggest that metric methods are most vulnerable to bias when data are synthesized into an overall conclusion, highlighting the need for bias countermeasures and comprehensive statistical frameworks for synthesizing metric data to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias.     

Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale

Abstract

Previous research has provided support for the impact of juror pre-trial bias on judicial decision making, particularly in cases where the evidence presented at trial is of weak or ambiguous probative value. In an effort to identify whether a pre-trial bias for forensic evidence exists, the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS) was developed and tested. The results of a principal components analysis suggested that two distinct constructs were being measured, corresponding to a pro-prosecution and pro-defence bias toward forensic evidence. In a second validation study, scores on these two subscales were compared with other existing juror bias measures (Juror Bias Scale and Belief in a Just World) and in a mock juror decision making task only the pro-prosecution subscale of the FEEBS predicted the perceived strength of forensic evidence. A partial mediation model is presented which explains the relationship between this bias and verdict preferences. The implications of this potential juror bias are discussed in the context of real juries, the CSI Effect (which refers to anecdotal claims that jurors are biased by the popularity of fictional representations of forensic science on television) and peremptory challenges, as well as future research directions.     

Mental disorder and legal responsibility: The relevance of stages of decision making

The paper discusses the relevance of decision-making models for evaluating the impact of mental disorder on legal responsibility. A three-stage model is presented that analyzes decision making in terms of behavioral control. We argue that understanding dysfunctions in each of the three stages of decision making could provide important insights in the relation between mental disorder and legal responsibility. In particular, it is argued that generating options for action constitutes an important but largely ignored stage of the decision-making process, and that dysfunctions in this early stage might undermine the whole process of making decisions (and thus behavioral control) more strongly than dysfunctions in later stages. Lastly, we show how the presented framework could be relevant to the actual psychiatric assessment of a defendant's decision making within the context of an insanity defense.     

Decision analysis in forensic science

Forensic scientists are routinely faced with the problems of making decisions under circumstances of uncertainty (i.e., to perform or not perform a test). A decision making model in forensic science is proposed, illustrated with an example from the field of forensic genetics. The approach incorporates available evidence and associated uncertainties with the assessment of utilities (or desirability of the consequences). The paper examines a general example for which identification will be made of the decision maker, the possible actions, the uncertain states of nature, the possible source of evidence and the kind of utility assessments required. It is argued that a formal approach can help to clarify the decision process and give a coherent means of combining elements to reach a decision.     

Beyond Rational Choice: the Hot/Cool Perspective of Criminal Decision Making

This paper proposes a general framework of criminal decision making that assumes both ‘cool’ cognition and ‘hot’ affect, i.e. feelings, to influence criminal choice. Drawing from judgment and decision making research and social psychology, the hot/cool perspective extends rational choice and deterrence theories by explaining how affect is likely to influence criminal decisions alongside cognitive considerations, such as the perceived costs and benefits of crime. It is shown how the hot/cool perspective offers a more realistic account of criminal decision making processes than existing decision models and approaches and also allows for the explanation of criminal behaviors that are difficult to explain in terms of rational choice.     

“Blood,Bucks and Bias”: Reliability and biasability of crime scene investigators’ selection and prioritization of blood traces

When crime scene investigators (CSIs) encounter crime scenes with large volumes of blood, some selection and prioritization is often needed, and this will impact on what blood is and is not available for forensic analysis. What factors influence CSIs decision making process is largely unknown. This study examines the effects of awareness of limited resources and irrelevant contextual case information indicating either a homicide or a suicide on CSIs collection of blood traces. To this end, two scenario-based experiments with CSIs and novices were conducted. Overall, the results suggest that even when CSIs decisions are made under identical conditions, their trace selection varies both when it comes to numbers and locations. Furthermore, awareness of limited resources made CSIs collect fewer traces and their selections also varied following the contextual case information, showing similarities and differences with novices. Since blood traces can be used to establish both activity and identity the findings can have important implications for the subsequent investigation as well as trial.     

The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making

Several researchers have investigated the impact of evidence of prior convictions on jurors' decision making. Very little is known about a related issue, the impact of prioracquittal evidence introduced by the prosecution on jurors' decisions. The Supreme Court recently held (Dowling v. U.S., 1990) that the admission of prior acquittal evidence does not unfairly prejudice the defendant. We conducted a simulation study to examine the effects of prior record evidence (prior convictions, prior acquittals, and no prior record) on jurors' decisions. We also manipulated the presence of judicial instructions on the limited use jurors can make of extrinsic acts evidence. Mock jurors were more likely to convict the defendant when they had evidence of a prior conviction than when they had evidence of a prior acquittal or no record evidence. This effect was mediated by attributions about criminal propensity. Judge's limiting instructions were ineffective in guiding jurors' use of prior record evidence.     

“CSI效应”对香港华人群体的科学证据感知评估

电视是向公众传递信息的强大媒介。最近,法庭科学和刑事司法相关题材内容在各种媒体激增,伴随着公众对法庭证据的期望提高,"CSI效应"(犯罪现场调查影视剧效应)应运而生。本研究对CSI效应的探讨有两个方面的贡献。第一,验证了在香港中国人群中是否存在CSI效应。第二,采用模拟陪审团模式,从实证角度出发全面考察CSI效应。研究发现,尽管涉及法庭科学证据的媒体报道数量确实在某种程度上影响了参与者对法庭证据的感知,但这种感知并不影响参与者对法律的判断。法庭科学题材影视剧的观众在控方仅出示法庭证据时不可能判定被告有罪,在仅出示证词时也不可能判定被告有罪。当提交法庭证据时,唯一判定被告有罪的重要预测因素是参与者对科学证据可靠性的评价。本研究的结果表明在香港不存在CSI效应。     

The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts

Experts play a critical role in forensic decision making, even when cognition is offloaded and distributed between human and machine. In this paper, we investigated the impact of using Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) on human decision makers. We provided 3680 AFIS lists (a total of 55,200 comparisons) to 23 latent fingerprint examiners as part of their normal casework. We manipulated the position of the matching print in the AFIS list. The data showed that latent fingerprint examiners were affected by the position of the matching print in terms of false exclusions and false inconclusives. Furthermore, the data showed that false identification errors were more likely at the top of the list and that such errors occurred even when the correct match was present further down the list. These effects need to be studied and considered carefully, so as to optimize human decision making when using technologies such as AFIS.     

Collective decision making by committee

Implicitly or explicitly, economic decisions always contain elements of compromise. However, the bargaining models of economic theory treat only the two decision maker case with linearly aggregated priorities; i.e. compromise decisions under Pareto optimality and no side payments. Even then the relative importance of the decision makers remains indeterminate. This paper proposes a simplified bargaining model with three new features: (a) it allows multiple participants; (b) it uses optimal voting patterns to combine the policy proposals, rather than the policy priorities, to form those compromise decisions; and (c) it determines the relative power of each participant endogenously. Perhaps more important, the method does not depend on each decision maker knowing the preferences of his colleagues exactly.