CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Deception detection and forensic psychologyLegal processes and jurisprudenceReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E): A general approach for improving decision making as well as minimizing noise and bias

Open access
Dror, Itiel E., Kukucka, Jeff·2021·Forensic Science International: Synergy
DOI 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161PMC PMC8385162
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Procedures such as linear sequential unmasking ensure that the actual data/evidence is driving the cognitive process, rather than the suspect.

    “To avoid such bias (suspect/target driven bias causing circular and backward reasoning driven by the Reference Materials, see details and discussion about the sources of bias, above), procedures such as linear sequential unmasking (LSU, see also LSU-E) ensure that the actual data/evidence is driving the cognitive process, rather than the suspect (I. E. Dror et al., 2015; I. E. Dror & Kukucka, 2021”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror & Kukucka, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. [1]Asche S.E. Forming impressions of personality J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41 1964 258 290 20995551
  2. [2]Hovland C.I. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion 1957 Yale University Press
  3. [3]Krane D. Ford S. Gilder J. Inman K. Jamieson A. Koppl R. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation J. Forensic Sci. 53 2008 1006 1107 18638252
  4. [4]Dror I.E. Thompson W.C. Meissner C.A. Kornfield I. Krane D. Saks M. Context management toolbox: a Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making J. Forensic Sci. 60 4 2015 1111 1112 26088016
  5. [7]Deese J. Kaufman R.A. Serial effects in recall of unorganized and sequentially organized verbal material J. Exp. Psychol. 54 3 1957 180 13475644
  6. [10]Bargh J. Morsella E. The unconscious mind Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3 1 2008 73 79 18584056 PMC2440575
  7. [11]Broadbent D.A. Perception and Communication 1958 Pergamon Press London, England
  8. [12]Deutsch J.A. Deutsch D. Attention: some theoretical considerations Psychol. Rev. 70 1963 80 90 14027390
  9. [13]Tversky A. Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases Science 185 4157 1974 1124 1131 17835457
  10. [17]Staw B.M. The escalation of commitment: an update and appraisal Shapira Z. Organizational Decision Making 1997 Cambridge University Press 191 215
  11. [18]Sherif M. Taub D. Hovland C.I. Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments J. Exp. Psychol. 55 2 1958 150 155 13513928
  12. [20]Dean M.L. Presentation order effects in product taste tests J. Psychol. 105 1 1980 107 110 7381797
  13. [21]Carlson K.A. Russo J.E. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 7 2 2001 91 11477983
  14. [24]Klales A.R. Lesciotto K.M. The “science of science”: examining bias in forensic anthropology Proceedings of the 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2016
  15. [25]Davidson M. Rando C. Nakhaeizadeh S. Cognitive bias and the order of examination on skeletal remains Proceedings of the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2019
  16. [27]Dror I.E. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias Anal. Chem. 92 12 2020 7998 8004 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 32508089 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [28]Kukucka J. Kassin S.M. Zapf P.A. Dror I.E. Cognitive bias and blindness: a global survey of forensic science examiners Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6 2017 452 459
  18. [29]Dror I.E. The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong Kapur N. The Paradoxical Brain 2011 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 177 188
  19. [30]Eeden C. De Poot C. Koppen P. The forensic confirmation bias: a comparison between experts and novices J. Forensic Sci. 64 1 2019 120 126 29772072
  20. [32]MacLean C. Dror I.E. The effect of contextual information on professional judgment: reliability and biasability of expert workplace safety inspectors J. Saf. Res. 77 2021 13 22 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.01.002 34092303 · DOI
  21. [33]Rassin E. ‘Anyone who commits such a cruel crime, must be criminally irresponsible’: context effects in forensic psychological assessment Psychiatr. Psychol. Law 2021 10.1080/13218719.2021.1938272 PMC9521360 36189103 · DOI
  22. [34]Meterko V. Cooper G. Cognitive biases in criminal case evaluation: a review of the research J. Police Crim. Psychol. 2021 10.1007/s11896-020-09425-8 · DOI
  23. [36]Goyal M.K. Kuppermann N. Cleary S.D. Teach S.J. Chamberlain J.M. Racial disparities in pain management of children with appendicitis in emergency departments JAMA Pediatr 169 11 2015 996 1002 26366984 PMC4829078
  24. [37]Dror I.E. Biases in forensic experts Science 360 6386 2018 243 10.1126/science.aat8443 29674567 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [38]Kassin S.M. Dror I.E. Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2 1 2013 42 52 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [43]ANZPAA A Review of Contextual Bias in Forensic Science and its Potential Legal Implication 2010 Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency
  27. [44]Kukucka J. Dror I.E. Human factors in forensic science: psychological causes of bias and error DeMatteo D. Scherr K.C. The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law 2021 Oxford University Press New York
  28. [45]Dror I.E. Melinek J. Arden J.L. Kukucka J. Hawkins S. Carter J. Atherton D.S. Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions J. Forensic Sci. 66 4 2021 10.1111/1556-4029.14697 PMC8451910 33608908 · DOI
  29. [46]Sunde N. Dror I.E. A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making Forensic Sci. Int.: Digit. Invest. 37 2021 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666281721000834
  30. [47]Murrie D.C. Boccaccini M.T. Guarnera L.A. Rufino K.A. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol. Sci. 24 10 2013 1889 1897 23969777
  31. [49]Thomas C.M. Bertram E. Johnson D. The SBAR communication technique Nurse Educat. 34 4 2009 176 180 19574858
  32. [51]Almazrouei M.A. Dror I.E. Morgan R. The forensic disclosure model: what should be disclosed to, and by, forensic experts? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 59 2019
  33. [52]Dror I.E. Combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination J. Forensic Sci. 57 1 2012 276 277 22220912
  34. [53]Simon D. Minimizing Error and Bias in Death Investigations vol. 49 2018 Seton Hall Law Rev. 255 305

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Towson University (US)
Corresponding author
Dror, Itiel E.
ORCID
Venue
Forensic Science International: Synergy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
Volume
3
Pages
100161
ISSN
2589-871X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100161
PMC
PMC8385162
OpenAlex
W3195974434
Cited by
104
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forensic Science International Synergy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
decision-making, noise reduction, bias mitigation, forensic decision-making

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