Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications
Open accessAbstract
We investigated whether experts can objectively focus on feature information in fingerprints without being misled by extraneous information, such as context. We took fingerprints that have previously been examined and assessed by latent print experts to make positive identification of suspects. Then we presented these same fingerprints again, to the same experts, but gave a context that suggested that they were a no-match, and hence the suspects could not be identified. Within this new context, most of the fingerprint experts made different judgements, thus contradicting their own previous identification decisions. Cognitive aspects involved in biometric identification can explain why experts are vulnerable to make erroneous identifications.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
New psychological work has examined cognitive-bias issues in forensics, including how biases in information and practices can alter forensic analysts' conclusions.
“A new generation of psychological work has examined cognitive-bias issues in forensics, including how a range of biases in information and practices can alter the conclusions that forensic analysts reach (see Dror et al. 2006, Dror & Hampikian 2011).”
From Wrongful Convictions (2020) · cites this paper as Dror et al. 2006
The power of contextual irrelevant information has been demonstrated in DNA and fingerprinting.
“The power of such contextual irrelevant information has even been demonstrated in the most used and highly regarded evidence in the justice and legal systems, e.g., DNA and fingerprinting (I. E. Dror & Hampikian, 2011; I. E. Dror et al., 2006).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror et al., 2006
Expert fingerprint examiners can reach different and conflicting conclusions on the same evidence when presented within biasing irrelevant context.
“For example, testing expert fingerprint examiners showed that they can reach different and conflicting conclusions on the same evidence when presented within biasing irrelevant context. (I. E. Dror et al., 2006; for a review, see Kukucka & Dror, 2023).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror et al., 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., et al. (2017) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Garrett, B. L. (2020) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects
Dror, I. E. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040490 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationCultural consequences of miscarriages of justice
Cole, S. A. (2009) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.874 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Thompson, W. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2301844120 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dror, Itiel E.
- ORCID
- Dror, Itiel E.
- Venue
- Forensic Science International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 74-78
- ISSN
- 0379-0738 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083569791
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 10.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Forensic Science International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Forensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
- Keywords
- fingerprint recognition, expert errors, contextual information, cognitive biases, biometric identification, forensic decision-making, suspect identification
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Dermatoglyphics, Humans, Judgment, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
