Statistical Discrimination of Footwear: A Method for the Comparison of Accidentals on Shoe Outsoles Inspired by Facial Recognition Techniques

Abstract:  In the field of forensic footwear examination, it is a widely held belief that patterns of accidental marks found on footwear and footwear impressions possess a high degree of "uniqueness." This belief, however, has not been thoroughly studied in a numerical way using controlled experiments. As a result, this form of valuable physical evidence has been the subject of admissibility challenges. In this study, we apply statistical techniques used in facial pattern recognition, to a minimal set of information gleaned from accidental patterns. That is, in order to maximize the amount of potential similarity between patterns, we only use the coordinate locations of accidental marks (on the top portion of a footwear impression) to characterize the entire pattern. This allows us to numerically gauge how similar two patterns are to one another in a worst-case scenario, i.e., in the absence of a tremendous amount of information normally available to the footwear examiner such as accidental mark size and shape. The patterns were recorded from the top portion of the shoe soles (i.e., not the heel) of five shoe pairs. All shoes were the same make and model and all were worn by the same person for a period of 30 days. We found that in 20–30 dimensional principal component (PC) space (99.5% variance retained), patterns from the same shoe, even at different points in time, tended to cluster closer to each other than patterns from different shoes. Correct shoe identification rates using maximum likelihood linear classification analysis and the hold-one-out procedure ranged from 81% to 100%. Although low in variance, three-dimensional PC plots were made and generally corroborated the findings in the much higher dimensional PC-space. This study is intended to be a starting point for future research to build statistical models on the formation and evolution of accidental patterns.     

The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Some federal courts have used a reasonable woman standard rather than the traditional reasonable man or reasonable person standard to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The current research examined the impact of the reasonable woman standard on federal district court decisions, controlling for other factors found to affect sexual harassment court decisions. Results indicated that there was a weak relationship between whether a case followed a reasonable woman precedent-setting case and the likelihood that the court decision favored the plaintiff. The implications of our findings for individuals and organizations involved in sexual harassment claims are discussed.     

The impact of sexual assault history and relationship context on appraisal of and responses to acquaintance sexual assault risk

Although a major predictor of sexual victimization is previous victimization, the mechanism underlying this effect is not well understood. Sexual assault history's impact on appraisal of and responses to sexual assault risk was examined in an experimental analog study. Intimacy with perpetrator was also examined as a potential contributor to appraisal and responses. Young women varying in sexual assault history were randomly assigned to receive a scenario in which type of perpetrator was manipulated (someone just met, friend, date, boyfriend). Respondents appraised the man's actions as sexual interest or assault and indicated intentions to respond (resistance and nonresistance). Sexual assault history did not directly influence appraisal or intended responses but had modest indirect effects on resistance via sexual assertiveness. The primary influence on appraisal and responses was perpetrator intimacy. Women facing advances within a more intimate relationship were less likely to appraise those advances as threatening and less likely to resist.     

Men and Women’s Attachment and Contact Patterns with Parents During the First Year of College

Attending a university involves change and transition and an opportunity to study older adolescents’ attachment. The current study explored potential gender differences in both older adolescents’ need-and nonneed-based interactions with parents and their perceptions of attachment quality. Results indicated that although females did not initiate significantly more need-based contact with parents than males, they received significantly more need-based contact than males that was initiated by their parents. On the other hand, females both initiated and received nonneed-based contact with parents more than males. Consistent with attachment theory, parent–child need- and nonneed-based interactions were related to one’s perceived quality of attachment. Results indicated that adolescent attachment involves both need- and nonneed-based parent–adolescent interactions. The pattern of findings suggests that adolescent males and females may show attachment in different ways.This research is based on the first author’s master’s thesis at American University under the supervision of the second author.Department of Psychology, American University, Washington, DC. Received MA in Psychology from American University, Washington, DC. Research interests lie within developmental and clinical psychology, parent–adolescent interactions, and child psychopathology.Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, American University, Washington, DC. Received PhD in Clinical Psychology from Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Research interests include gender issues and developmental and clinical psychology.     

AND HOW ARE THE CHILDREN?

Recent innovations in American child custody law have affected both the substantive law and the procedures by which custody decisions are reached. Professor Bruch describes these developments, analyses their underpinnings in psychology and ideology, and identifies both intended and unrecognized effects of the dispute resolution process on the custody decision. She concludes that many new doctrines and procedures that have been widely assumed to benefit children, including joint custody and mediation, often disserve children's interests.