Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?* ^{, †} .

Publisher: Blackwell Pub Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0375370 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1556-4029 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00221198 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Forensic Sci Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2006- : Malden, MA : Blackwell Pub.
Original Publication: [Chicago, Ill.] : Callaghan and Co., 1956-

Bias* ; Decision Making* ; Expert Testimony*; Forensic Sciences/*legislation & jurisprudence; Female ; Humans ; Male

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him-and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.
(© 2020 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)

National Registry of Exonerations. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx (Accessed June 29, 2020).
Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2013;2:42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.
Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identif 2006;56:600-16.
Smalarz L, Madon S, Yang Y, Guyll M, Buck S. The perfect match: do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis? Law Hum Behav 2016;2016(40):420-9. 0.1037/lhb0000190.
Stevenage SV, Bennett A. A biased opinion: demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results. Forensic Sci Int 2017;276:93-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009.
Cooper GS, Meterko V. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic Sci Int 2019;297:35-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016.
Kukucka J. Confirmation bias in the forensic sciences: causes, consequences, and countermeasures. In: Koen WJ, Bowers CM, editors. The psychology and sociology of wrongful convictions: forensic science reform. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2018;223-45.
Kukucka J, Kassin SM. Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law Hum Behav 2014;38:256-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066.
Miller LS. Bias among forensic document examiners: a need for procedural changes. J Police Sci Admin 1984;12:407-11.
Bieber P. Measuring the impact of cognitive bias in fire investigation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Fire Investigation, Science and Technology; 2012 Oct 15-17. Adelphia, MD. Bradenton, FL: National Association of Fire Investigators, 2012.
Nakhaeizadeh S, Dror IE, Morgan R. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Sci Justice 2014;54:208-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003.
Osborne NK, Taylor MC, Healey M, Zajac R. Bloodstain pattern classification: accuracy, effect of contextual information and the role of analyst characteristics. Sci Justice 2016;56:123-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.12.005.
Osborne NK, Woods S, Kieser J, Zajac R. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons? Sci Justice 2014;54:267-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005.
van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. Forensic expectations: investigating a crime scene with prior information. Sci Justice 2016;56:475-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003.
Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice 2011;51:204-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004.
National Commission on Forensic Science. Ensuring that forensic analysis is based upon task-relevant information. 2015 Dec. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/file/818196/download (Accessed July 24, 2020).
Kukucka J. People who live in ivory towers shouldn't throw stones: a refutation of Curley. Forensic Sci Int Synergy 2020;2:110-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.03.001.
Thompson WC. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust J Forensic Sci 2011;43:123-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2010.541499.
Dror IE. Biases in forensic experts. Science 2018;360:243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443.
Kassin SM. Why confessions trump innocence. Am Psychol 2012;67:431-45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028212.
Thompson WC. Determining the proper evidentiary basis for an expert opinion: what do experts need to know and when do they know too much? In: Robertson C, Kesselheim A, editors. Blinding as a solution to bias: strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2015;133-50.
Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, et al. Context management toolbox: a linear sequential unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci 2015;60:1111-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. 2016 Sept. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/page/file/933476/download (Accessed July 24, 2020).
Kukucka J, Kassin SM, Zapf PA, Dror IE. Cognitive bias and blindness: a global survey of forensic science examiners. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2017;6:452-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001.
Pronin E, Lin DY, Ross L. The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others. Per Soc Psychol Bull 2002;28:369-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008.
Bond CF, DePaulo BM. Accuracy of deception judgments. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2006;10:214-34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2.
Gilbert DT, Malone PS. The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 1995;117:21-38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21.
Jones EE. Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: Freeman, 1990.
Ross L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 1977;10:174-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3.
Ross L. From the fundamental attribution error to the truly fundamental attribution error and beyond: my research journey. Perspect Psychol Sci 2018;13:750-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618769855.
Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, Ginsburg GP, Merlino ML, Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav 2001;25:433-58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012899030937.
Kovera MB, McAuliff BD. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers? J Appl Psychol 2000;85:574-86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.
Kovera MB, McAuliff BD, Hebert KS. Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. J Appl Psychol 1999;84:362-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.362.
McAuliff BD, Kovera MB. Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol 2008;38:385-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310.x.
Rosenthal R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
McAuliff BD, Duckworth TD. I spy with my little eye: jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence. Law Hum Behav 2010;34:489-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3.
McAuliff BD, Kovera MB, Nuñez G. Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law Hum Behav 2009;33:247-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0.
Koehler JJ. Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics 2017;57:153-68.
Lieberman JD, Carrell CA, Miethe TD, Krauss DA. Gold versus platinum: do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychol Public Pol L 2008;14:27-62. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27.
Mitchell G, Garrett BL. The impact of proficiency testing information and error aversions on the weight given to fingerprint evidence. Behav Sci Law 2019;37:195-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2402.
Koehler JJ, Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ, McQuiston DE. Science, technology, or the expert witness: what influences jurors' judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychol Public Pol L 2016;22:401-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000103.
McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law Hum Behav 2009;33:436-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1.
Austin JL, Kovera MB. Cross-examination educates jurors about missing control groups in scientific evidence. Psychol Public Pol L 2015;21:252-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000049.
Salerno JM, McCauley MR. Mock jurors' judgments about opposing scientific experts: do cross-examination, deliberation and need for cognition matter? Am J Forensic Psychol 2009;27:37-60.
Kovera MB, Levy RJ, Borgida E, Penrod SD. Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law Hum Behav 1994;18:653-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499330.
Koehler JJ. If the shoe fits they might acquit: the value of forensic science testimony. J Empir Legal Stud 2011;8:21-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x.
Chorn JA, Kovera MB. Variations in reliability and validity do not influence judge, attorney, and mock juror decisions about psychological expert evidence. Law Hum Behav 2019;43:542-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000345.
Thompson WC, Scurich N. How cross-examination on subjectivity and bias affects jurors' evaluations of forensic science evidence. J Forensic Sci 2019;64:1379-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14031.
Bush MA, Bush PJ, Sheets HD. A study of multiple bitemarks inflicted in human skin by a single dentition using geometric morphometric analysis. Forensic Sci Int 2011;211:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.03.028.
Bush MA, Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RB. Biomechanical factors in human dermal bitemarks in a cadaver model. J Forensic Sci 2009;54:167-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00908.x.
Holtkötter H, Sheets HD, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Effect of systematic dental shape modification in bitemarks. Forensic Sci Int 2013;228:61-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.02.024.
Miller RG, Bush PJ, Dorion RB, Bush MA. Uniqueness of the dentition as impressed in human skin: a cadaver model. J Forensic Sci 2009;54:909-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01076.x.
Dror IE, Mnookin J. The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law Probab Risk 2010;9:47-67.
Tangen JM, Thompson MB, McCarthy DJ. Identifying fingerprint expertise. Psychol Sci 2011;22:995-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611414729.
Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011;108:7733-8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108.
Dror IE, Charlton D, Perón A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 2006;156:174-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017.
Fraser-Mackenzie PA, Dror IE, Wertheim K. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments. Sci Justice 2013;53:144-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.002.
Ribeiro G, Tangen JM, McKimmie BM. Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int 2019;297:138-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.034.
Elaad E, Ginton A, Ben-Shakhar G. The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions. J Behav Decis Making 1994;7:279-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070405.
Hasel LE, Kassin SM. On the presumption of evidentiary independence: can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychol Sci 2009;20:122-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x.
Marion S, Kukucka J, Collins C, Kassin SM, Burke TM. Lost proof of innocence: the impact of confessions on alibi witnesses. Law Hum Behav 2016;40:65-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000156.
Kassin SM, Bogart D, Kerner J. Confessions that corrupt: evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychol Sci 2012;23:41-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422918.
Zapf PA, Kukucka J, Kassin SM, Dror IE. Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychol Public Pol L 2018;24:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000153.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer, 1986;1-24.
McCarthy-Wilcox A, NicDaeid N. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility. Forensic Sci Int 2018;291:100-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.030.
van den Eeden CAJ, de Poot CJ, van Koppen PJ. The forensic confirmation bias: a comparison between experts and novices. J Forensic Sci 2019;64:120-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13817.
Despodova NM, Kukucka J, Hiley A. Can defense attorneys detect forensic confirmation bias? Effects on evidentiary judgments and trial strategies. Z Psychol 2020;228:216-20. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000414.
Butt L. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions: commentary by a forensic examiner. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2013;2:59-60. j.jarmac.2013.01.012.
Elaad E. Psychological contamination in forensic decisions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2013;2:76-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.006.
Gardner BO, Kelley S, Murrie DC, Dror IE. What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making? Sci Justice 2019;59:516-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.005.
Leadbetter M. Letter to the editor. Fingerprint World 2007;33:231.
Oliver WR. Comment on Dror, Kukucka, Kassin, and Zapf (2018): When expert decision making goes wrong. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2018;7:314-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.01.010.
Cutler BL, Kovera MB. Expert psychological testimony. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2011;20:53-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388802.
Vidmar N, Diamond SS. Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn L Rev 2001;66:1121-80.
Jones EE, Harris VA. The attribution of attitudes. J Exp Soc Psychol 1967;3:1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0.
Miller AG, Jones EE, Hinkle S. A robust attribution error in the personality domain. J Exp Soc Psychol 1981;17:587-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90041-X.
Gilbert DT, Jones EE. Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;50:269-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.269.
Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1958.
Kassin SM, Sukel H. Coerced confessions and the jury: an experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Hum Behav 1997;21:27-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769.
Wallace DB, Kassin SM. Harmless error analysis: how do judges respond to confession errors? Law Hum Behav 2012;36:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9262-0.
Neuschatz JS, Lawson DS, Swanner JK, Meissner CA, Neuschatz JS. The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law Hum Behav 2008;32:137-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1.
Simon D. A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision making. U Chicago L Rev 2004;71:511-86.
Dror IE, Champod C, Langenburg G, Charlton D, Hunt H, Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter-and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison. Forensic Sci Int 2011;208:10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.013.
Found B, Ganas J. The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci Justice 2013;53:154-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004.
Gardner BO, Kelley S, Murrie DC, Blaisdell KN. Do evidence submission forms expose latent print examiners to task-irrelevant information? Forensic Sci Int 2019;297:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.048.
Stoel RD, Dror IE, Miller LS. Bias among forensic document examiners: still a need for procedural changes. Aust J Forensic Sci 2014;46:91-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.797026.
Mattijssen EJAT, Kerkhoff W, Berger CEH, Dror IE, Stoel RD. Implementing context information management in forensic casework: minimizing contextual bias in firearms examination. Sci Justice 2016;56:113-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.11.004.
Archer MS, Wallman JF. Context effects in forensic entomology and use of sequential unmasking in casework. J Forensic Sci 2016;61:1270-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13139.
Langenburg G. Addressing potential observer effects in forensic science: a perspective from a forensic scientist who uses linear sequential unmasking techniques. Aust J Forensic Sci 2017;49:548-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2016.1259433.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Keywords: confirmation bias; context management; contextual bias; cross-examination; expert testimony; forensic science; juror decision-making; task-relevant

Date Created: 20200814 Date Completed: 20210503 Latest Revision: 20210503

20231215

10.1111/1556-4029.14546

32790911