PAPER ODONTOLOGY
Context Effects and Observer Bias—Implications for Forensic Odontology
Mark Page B.D.Sc. (Hons), Grad.Dip.Clin.Dent., G.C.Ed.,
Jane Taylor B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D.,
Matt Blenkin B.D.Sc., M.Sc.Dent.,
Mark Page B.D.Sc. (Hons), Grad.Dip.Clin.Dent., G.C.Ed.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorJane Taylor B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorMatt Blenkin B.D.Sc., M.Sc.Dent.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorMark Page B.D.Sc. (Hons), Grad.Dip.Clin.Dent., G.C.Ed.,
Jane Taylor B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D.,
Matt Blenkin B.D.Sc., M.Sc.Dent.,
Mark Page B.D.Sc. (Hons), Grad.Dip.Clin.Dent., G.C.Ed.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorJane Taylor B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorMatt Blenkin B.D.Sc., M.Sc.Dent.
University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorAdditional information and reprint requests: Jane Taylor, B.D.S., B.Sc.Dent., M.D.Sc., Ph.D. Oral Health University of Newcastle PO Box 127 Ourimbah NSW 2258 Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Abstract: 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.
References
- 1 Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev 2002; 90: 1–55.
- 2 Nordby JJ. Can we believe what we see, if we see what we believe?—expert disagreement. J Forensic Sci 1992; 37: 1115–24.
- 3 Pronin E, Kugler MB. Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: the introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J Exp Soc Psychol 2007; 43: 565–78.
- 4
Whitman G,
Koppl R.
Rational bias in forensic science.
Law, Probability and Risk
2010; 9: 69–90.
10.1093/lpr/mgp028 Google Scholar
- 5 Byrd JS. Confirmation bias, ethics, and mistakes in forensics. J Forensic Identification 2006; 56(4): 511–525.
- 6 Budowle B, Bottrell MC, Bunch SG, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, et al. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54(4): 798–809.
- 7 Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Commentary on: Bottrell MC, Bunch SG, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, et al. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54: 798–809. J Forensic Sci 2010;55:273–4.
- 8 Dror IE, Péron AE, Hind S, Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005; 19: 799–810.
- 9 Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Identification 2006; 56: 600–16.
- 10 Chamberlain v. The Queen (No. 2) 1984, 153 CLR 521, http://www.lindychamberlain.com/content/legal/findings_and_trancripts (accessed June 13, 2010).
- 11 Shannon CR. Royal commission of inquiry in respect to the case of Edward Charles Splatt (S. Aust). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Printer, 1984.
- 12 US Department of Justice. A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case. 2006, http://www.nlada.org/Defender/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1145382069.31/document_info (accessed March 28, 2010).
- 13 Cole SA. The prevalence and potential causes of wrongful conviction by fingerprint evidence. Gold Gate Univ Law Rev 2006; 37: 39–105.
- 14
Koppl R.
How to improve forensic science.
Europ J Law Econ
2005; 20: 255–86.
10.1007/s10657-005-4196-6 Google Scholar
- 15 Giannelli PC. Confirmation bias. Crim Justice 2007; 22: 60–2.
- 16 McCarroll JE, Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ, Hermsen JM. Posttraumatic stress symptoms following forensic dental identification: Mt Carmel, Waco, Texas. Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153: 778–82.
- 17 McCarroll JE, Ursano RJ, Fullerton CS, Liu X, Lundy A. Somatic symptoms in Gulf War mortuary workers. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 29–33.
- 18 Ursano RJ, Fullerton CS, Vance K, Kao T-C. Postraumatic stress disorder and identification in disaster workers. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 353–9.
- 19 Jonakait RN. Forensic science: the need for regulation. Harv J Law Tech 1991; 4: 109–91.
- 20
Ask K,
Granhag PA.
Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
2005; 2: 43–63.
10.1002/jip.19 Google Scholar
- 21 Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron AE. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 2006; 156: 74–8.
- 22 Lagenburg G, Champod C, Wertheim BA. Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54: 571–82.
- 23
Thompson WC.
Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation.
Law, Probability and Risk
2009; 8: 257–76.
10.1093/lpr/mgp013 Google Scholar
- 24 Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2001; 7: 65–70.
- 25 Wickstrom G, Bendix T. The Hawthorne effect: what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand J Work Environ Health 2000; 26: 363–7.
- 26 McNamee AH, Sweet D. Adherence of forensic odontologists to the ABFO guidelines for victim evidence collection. J Forensic Sci 2003; 48: 382–5.
- 27 Whittaker DK, Brickley MR, Evans L. A comparison of the ability of experts and non-experts to differentiate between adult and child human bite marks using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Forensic Sci Int 1998; 92: 11–20.
- 28 Hall LJ, Player E. Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision making? Forensic Sci Int 2008; 181: 36–9.
- 29 Dror IE. On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Sci Int 2009; 191: e-17–8.
- 30 Saks MJ, Risinger DM, Rosenthal R, Thompson WC. Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Sci Justice 2003; 43: 77–90.
- 31 Krug K. The relationship between confidence and accuracy: current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research. Appl Psychol Crim Justice 2007; 3: 7–41.
- 32 Pallier G, Wilkinson R, Danthiir V, Kleitman S, Knezevic G, Stankov L, et al. The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. J Gen Psychol 2002; 129: 257–99.
- 33
Porter C,
Parker RWR.
The demeanour of expert witnesses.
Austral J Forensic Sci
2001; 33: 45–50.
10.1080/00450610109410818 Google Scholar
- 34 Shynkaruk JM, Thompson VA. Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Mem Cognit 2006; 34: 619–32.
- 35 Loftus EF, Cole SA. Contaminated evidence. Science 2004; 304: 959.
- 36 Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci 2008; 53: 1006–7.
- 37 Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52: 687–91.
- 38 Bowers CM, Pretty IA. Expert disagreement in bitemark casework. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54: 915–8.
- 39 Dror IE, Rosenthal R. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasibility of forensic experts. J Forensic Sci 2008; 53: 900–3.
- 40 Pretty I, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 201: 38–44.
- 41 Clement JG, Blackwell SA. Is current bitemark analysis a misnomer? Forensic Sci Int 2010; 201: 33–7.
Citing Literature
