A method to induce stress in human subjects in online research environments.

This paper presents a method to induce stress in human subjects during online participation in research studies without the presence of researchers. In this study, participants in the stress-inducing condition (N = 52, 44%) were asked to answer general knowledge and mathematical questions which people often get wrong, and did so under time pressure as well as receiving feedback. In contrast, participants in the control condition (N = 66, 56%) did not have time pressure or receive feedback. The stress manipulation was found to be effective, as the reported state anxiety and visual analog scale on stress scores were higher for the stress group than for the non-stress group (both findings, p < 0.001). Consistent findings were found when accounting for trait anxiety as a moderator, with the exception of the state anxiety levels in high trait anxiety group. This stressing method combines the established stress conditions of uncontrollability (such as time pressures) and social evaluative threats (such as negative feedback). In addition, the method contains specific measures (such as a commitment statement and attention check questions) to enhance the internal validity by preventing and detecting cheating or random responses. This method can be deployed through any commonly available online software. It offers a simple and cost-effective way to collect data online - which fits the increasing need to carry out research in virtual and online environments.

Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias.

Fallacies about the nature of biases have shadowed a proper cognitive understanding of biases and their sources, which in turn lead to ways that minimize their impact. Six such fallacies are presented: it is an ethical issue, only applies to "bad apples", experts are impartial and immune, technology eliminates bias, blind spot, and the illusion of control. Then, eight sources of bias are discussed and conceptualized within three categories: (A) factors that relate to the specific case and analysis, which include the data, reference materials, and contextual information, (B) factors that relate to the specific person doing the analysis, which include past experience base rates, organizational factors, education and training, and personal factors, and lastly, (C) cognitive architecture and human nature that impacts all of us. These factors can impact what the data are (e.g., how data are sampled and collected, or what is considered as noise and therefore disregarded), the actual results (e.g., decisions on testing strategies, how analysis is conducted, and when to stop testing), and the conclusions (e.g., interpretation of the results). The paper concludes with specific measures that can minimize these biases.

Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias.

Cognitive bias may influence process flows and decision making steps in forensic DNA analyses and interpretation. Currently, seven sources of bias have been identified that may affect forensic decision making with roots in human nature; environment, culture, and experience; and case specific information. Most of the literature and research on cognitive bias in forensic science has focused on patterned evidence; however, forensic DNA testing is not immune to bias, especially when subjective interpretation is involved. DNA testing can be strengthened by recognizing the existence of bias, evaluating where it influences decision making, and, when applicable, implementing practices to reduce or control its effects. Elements that may improve forensic decision making regarding bias include cognitively informed education and training, quality assurance procedures, review processes, analysis and interpretation, and context management of irrelevant information. Although bias exists, reliable results often can be (and have been) produced. However, at times bias can (and has) impacted the interpretation of DNA results negatively. Therefore, being aware of the dangers of bias and implementing measures to control its potential impact should be considered. Measures and procedures that handicap the workings of the crime laboratory or add little value to improving the operation are not advocated, but simple yet effective measures are suggested. This article is meant to raise awareness of cognitive bias contamination in forensic DNA testing and to give laboratories possible pathways to make sound decisions to address its influences.

Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias.

An experimental study was designed to examine cognitive biases within forensic anthropological non-metric methods in assessing sex, ancestry and age at death. To investigate examiner interpretation, forty-one non-novice participants were semi randomly divided into three groups. Prior to conducting the assessment of the skeletal remains, two of the groups were given different extraneous contextual information regarding the sex, ancestry and age at death of the individual. The third group acted as a control group with no extraneous contextual information. The experiment was designed to investigate if the interpretation and conclusions of the skeletal remains would differ amongst participants within the three groups, and to assess whether the examiners would confirm or disagree with the given extraneous context when establishing a biological profile. The results revealed a significant biasing effect within the three groups, demonstrating a strong confirmation bias in the assessment of sex, ancestry and age at death. In assessment of sex, 31% of the participants in the control group concluded that the skeleton remains were male. In contrast, in the group that received contextual information that the remains were male, 72% concluded that the remains were male, and in the participant group where the context was that the remains were of a female, 0% of the participants concluded that the remains were male. Comparable results showing bias were found in assessing ancestry and age at death. These data demonstrate that cognitive bias can impact forensic anthropological non-metric methods on skeletal remains and affects the interpretation and conclusions of the forensic scientists. This empirical study is a step in establishing an evidence base approach for dealing with cognitive issues in forensic anthropological assessments, so as to enhance this valuable forensic science discipline.

Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments.

We examined forensic fingerprint examiners' suitability determinations of latent fingerprints comparing situations in which the latent is assessed solo (in isolation) versus situations in which it is presented alongside a comparison (matching or non-matching) exemplar print. The presence of a non-matching comparison exemplar led examiners to be more inclined to draw the conclusion that the latent was suitable for comparison compared to when the latent was presented solo. This effect persisted even when the latent presented was highly unsuitable for comparison. The presence of a matching comparison exemplar led examiners to be less likely to decide that the latent was suitable and more likely to decide the latent was questionable compared to solo analysis. This effect persisted even when the latent presented was highly suitable, suggesting a strong main effect. Knowledge of another examiner's previous determination that the latent was unsuitable was found to increase the likelihood that the examiner would conclude that the latent was unsuitable. However, knowledge of a previous "suitable" determination by another examiner did not increase the likelihood of a "suitable" conclusion by examiners. The finding that effects were weaker, although not entirely removed, in those with IAI certification suggests that training may be an appropriate route for reducing the effect of contextual influence and bias in suitability determinations. It was also shown that latent prints that were previously classed as "unsuitable" in a non-biasing context, continued to be judged to be "unsuitable" in a strongly biasing context (a major case in which a previous examiner was purported to have made an Individualization).

The most consistent finding in forensic science is inconsistency.

The most consistent finding in many forensic science domains is inconsistency (i.e., lack of reliability, reproducibility, repeatability, and replicability). The lack of consistency is a major problem, both from a scientific and a criminal justice point of view. Examining forensic conclusion data, from across many forensic domains, highlights the underlying cognitive issues and offers a better understanding of the issues and challenges. Such insights enable the development of ways to minimize these inconsistencies and move forward. The aim is to highlight the problem, so that it can be minimized and the reliability of forensic science evidence can be improved.

Measuring base-rate bias error in workplace safety investigators.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored the magnitude of professional industrial investigators' bias to attribute cause to a person more readily than to situational factors (i.e., human error bias). Such biased opinions may relieve companies from responsibilities and liability, as well as compromise efficacy of suggested preventative measures. METHOD: Professional investigators and undergraduate participants were given a summary of a workplace event and asked to allocate cause to the factors they found causal for the event. The summary was crafted to be objectively balanced in its implication of cause equally between two factors: a worker and a tire. Participants then rated their confidence and the objectivity of their judgment. We then conducted an effect size analysis, which supplemented the findings from our experiment with two previously published research studies that used the same event summary. RESULTS: Professionals exhibited a human error bias, but nevertheless believed that they were objective and confident in their conclusions. The lay control group also showed this human error bias. These data, along with previous research data, revealed that, given the equivalent investigative circumstances, this bias was significantly larger with the professional investigators, with an effect size of dunb = 0.97, than the control group with an effect size of only dunb = 0.32. CONCLUSIONS: The direction and strength of the human error bias can be quantified, and is shown to be larger in professional investigators compared to lay people. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Understanding the strength and direction of bias is a crucial step in mitigating the effects of the bias. The results of the current research demonstrate that mitigation strategies such as proper investigator training, a strong investigation culture, and standardized techniques, are potentially promising interventions to mitigate human error bias.

History information management strategy for minimising biases and noise for improved medical diagnosis.

Despite measures for physicians' excellence in diagnosis, the need for improvement of medical history techniques has been pointed out as one of the critical elements for improving diagnosis. Specific and proactive frameworks related to methods of effective history acquisition are needed to minimise bias and optimise decision-making. Therefore, this paper uses Linear Sequential Unmasking- Expanded to develop and propose a structured medical history acquisition strategy. The strength of this lies in its reliance on cognitive psychological processes. Breaking information gatherings and decisions into smaller tasks and ordering them correctly reduces cognitive load as well as minimises noise and bias cascade. Additionally, this approach can help physicians develop diagnostic expertise regardless of specialty.

The role of alternative hypotheses in reducing bias in forensic medical experts' decision making.

Medical opinions are often essential evidence in criminal cases but relatively little is known about the factors that impact forensic doctors' decision making. This research examines the role and impact of having an alternative hypothesis while forming a medical opinion. A scenario-based experiment with forensic doctors (n = 20) was conducted. In two out of three scenarios, the existence of alternative hypotheses impacted the actual opinions reached, the confidence in the judgments and the perceived consistency with the plaintiff hypothesis. Investigative and legal actors should be aware of the possibility of biases and importance of having alternative hypotheses when requesting and evaluating medical opinions.

Human and machine similarity judgments in forensic firearm comparisons.

It is unclear whether humans assess similarity differently than automated algorithms in firearms comparisons. Human participants (untrained in firearm examination) were asked to assess the similarity of pairs of images (from 0 to 100). A sample of 40 pairs of cartridge casing 2D-images was used. The images were divided into 4 groups according to their similarity as determined by an algorithm. Humans were able to distinguish between matches and non-matches (both when shown the 2 middle groups, as well as when shown all 4 groups). Thus, humans are able to make high-quality similarity judgments in firearm comparisons based on two images. The humans' similarity scores were superior to the algorithms' scores at distinguishing matches and non-matches, but inferior in assessing similarity within groups. This suggests that humans do not have the same group thresholds as the algorithm, and that a hybrid human-machine approach could provide better identification results than humans or algorithms alone.

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.

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.

Contextual information in medicolegal death investigation decision-making: Manner of death determination for cases of a single gunshot wound.

To explore the role of contextual information in determining manner of death, four cases involving single gunshot wounds were presented to participants (n = 252) involved in medicolegal death investigation. The participants received identical autopsy information but different contextual information. The data demonstrated that participants tended to rely on contextual information more than autopsy information: In the suicide context, participants across the four cases reached 153 final decisions of suicide (and 25 of homicide), whereas in the homicide context, participants reached only 10 final decisions of suicide (and 181 of homicide) --all while examining identical autopsy information. The impact of the contextual information was so powerful that many participants changed initial autopsy-based conclusions to align with the contextual information. Given the significant role and impact that contextual information has on expert decision making, one must consider what, how, and when contextual information should be used.

Statistical feature training improves fingerprint-matching accuracy in novices and professional fingerprint examiners.

Forensic science practitioners compare visual evidence samples (e.g. fingerprints) and decide if they originate from the same person or different people (i.e. fingerprint 'matching'). These tasks are perceptually and cognitively complex-even practising professionals can make errors-and what limited research exists suggests that existing professional training is ineffective. This paper presents three experiments that demonstrate the benefit of perceptual training derived from mathematical theories that suggest statistically rare features have diagnostic utility in visual comparison tasks. Across three studies (N = 551), we demonstrate that a brief module training participants to focus on statistically rare fingerprint features improves fingerprint-matching performance in both novices and experienced fingerprint examiners. These results have applied importance for improving the professional performance of practising fingerprint examiners, and even other domains where this technique may also be helpful (e.g. radiology or banknote security).

A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework.

Forensic analysts often receive information from a multitude of sources. Empirical work clearly demonstrates that biasing information can affect analysts' decisions, and that the order in which task-relevant information is received impacts human cognition and decision-making. Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU; Dror et al., 2015) and LSU-Expanded (LSU-E; Dror & Kukucka, 2021) are examples of research-based procedural frameworks to guide laboratories' and analysts' consideration and evaluation of case information. These frameworks identify parameters-such as objectivity, relevance, and biasing power-to prioritize and optimally sequence information for forensic analyses. Moreover, the LSU-E framework can be practically incorporated into any forensic discipline to improve decision quality by increasing the repeatability, reproducibility, and transparency of forensic analysts' decisions, as well as reduce bias. Future implementation of LSU and LSU-E in actual forensic casework can be facilitated by concrete guidance. We present here a practical worksheet designed to bridge the gap between research and practice by facilitating the implementation of LSU-E.

Overcoming learning barriers through knowledge management.

The ability to learn highly depends on how knowledge is managed. Specifically, different techniques for note-taking utilize different cognitive processes and strategies. In this paper, we compared dyslexic and control participants when using linear and non-linear note-taking. All our participants were professionals working in the banking and financial sector. We examined comprehension, accuracy, mental imagery & complexity, metacognition, and memory. We found that participants with dyslexia, when using a non-linear note-taking technique outperformed the control group using linear note-taking and matched the performance of the control group using non-linear note-taking. These findings emphasize how different knowledge management techniques can avoid some of the barriers to learners.

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.

Expert Reliability in Legal Proceedings: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, With Which Expert Should We Go?"

Between Expert Reliability refers to the extent to which different experts examining identical evidence make the same observations and reach the same conclusions. Some areas of expert decision making have been shown to entail questions with relatively low Between Expert Reliability, but the disagreement between experts is not always communicated to the legal actors forming decisions on the basis of the expert evidence. In this paper, we discuss the issues of Between Expert Reliability in legal proceedings, using forensic age estimations as a case study. Across national as well international jurisdictions, there is large variation in which experts are hired to conduct age estimations as well as the methods they use. Simultaneously, age estimations can be fully decisive for outcomes e.g. in asylum law and criminal law. Using datasets obtained from the Swedish legal context, we identify that radiologists and odontologists examining knees or teeth images to estimate age seem to disagree within their own disciplines (radiologist 1 v. radiologist 2 or odontologist 1 v. odontologist 2) as well as across different disciplines (radiologist v. odontologist) relatively often. This may have large implications e.g. in cases where only one expert from the respective field is involved. The paper discusses appropriate ways for legal actors to deal with the possibility of lacking Between Expert Reliability. This is indeed a challenging task provided that legal actors are legal experts but not necessarily scientific experts.

The effect of contextual information on professional judgment: Reliability and biasability of expert workplace safety inspectors.

INTRODUCTION: A critical aspect of occupational safety is workplace inspections by experts, in which hazards are identified. Scientific research demonstrates that expectation generated by context (i.e., prior knowledge and experience) can bias the judgments of professionals and that individuals are largely unaware when their judgments are affected by bias. METHOD: The current research tested the reliability and biasability of expert safety inspectors' judgments. We used a two-study design (Study 1, N = 83; Study 2, N = 70) to explore the potential of contextual, task-irrelevant, information to bias professionals' judgments. We examined three main issues: (1) the effect that biasing background information (safe and unsafe company history) had on professional regulatory safety inspectors' judgments of a worksite; (2) the reliability of those judgments amongst safety inspectors and (3) inspectors' awareness of bias in their judgments and confidence in their performance. RESULTS: Our findings establish that: (i) inspectors' judgments were biased by historical contextual information, (ii) they were not only biased, but the impact was implicit: they reported being unaware that it affected their judgments, and (iii) independent of our manipulations, inspectors were inconsistent with one another and the variations were not a product of experience. CONCLUSION: Our results are a replication of findings from a host of other professional domains, where honest, hardworking professionals underappreciate the biasing effect of context on their decision making. The current paper situates these findings within the relevant research on safety inspection, cognitive bias and decision making, as well as provides suggestions for bias mitigation in workplace safety inspection. Practical Application: Our results have implications for occupational health and safety given that inspection is an integral aspect of an effective safety system. In addition to our findings, this study contributes to the literature by providing recommendations regarding how to mitigate the effect of bias in inspection.