CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 634Deception detection and forensic psychologyMemory Processes and InfluencesLegal processes and jurisprudence

The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.

Kassin, Saul M., Dror, Itiel E., Kukucka, Jeff·2013·Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As illustrated by the mistaken, high-profile fingerprint identification of Brandon Mayfield in the Madrid Bomber case, and consistent with a recent critique by the National Academy of Sciences (2009), it is clear that the forensic sciences are subject to contextual bias and fraught with error. In this article, we describe classic psychological research on primacy, expectancy effects, and observer effects, all of which indicate that context can taint people's perceptions, judgments, and behaviors. Then we describe recent studies indicating that confessions and other types of information can set into motion forensic confirmation biases that corrupt lay witness perceptions and memories as well as the judgments of experts in various domains of forensic science. Finally, we propose best practices that would reduce bias in the forensic laboratory as well as its influence in the courts. © 2013 Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Psychologists Kassin, Dror, and Kukucka describe how an actor may be biased by outside information and how a forensic analyst's conclusions may bias others in the criminal justice system.

    “For example, psychologists Saul Kassin, Itiel Dror, and Jeff Kukucka describe not only how an actor may be biased by outside information and other factors but also how the conclusions reached by, say, a forensic analyst may bias others in the criminal justice system (Kassin et al. 2013).”

    From Wrongful Convictions (2020) · cites this paper as Kassin et al. 2013

  • False confessions can override evidence, rewrite witnesses' memories, corrupt eyewitness identifications, and cause forensic scientists to erroneously identify a suspect.

    “There are many other examples of this throughout the justice and legal systems; some examples are how false confessions will override evidence, rewrite witnesses’ memories, and corrupt eyewitness identifications, as well as how they can cause forensic scientists to erroneously identify a suspect (Hasel & Kassin, 2009; Kassin et al., 2013; see also the cases of the Central Park Five or Brendan Das”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Kassin et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J.
Affiliations
  • John Jay College of Criminal Justice (US)
  • University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2013-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
42-52
ISSN
  • 2211-3681 (ISSN-L)
  • 2211-369X
DOI
10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
OpenAlex
W2110516497
Cited by
634
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24
FWCI
61.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • US Department of Defense (N41756-10-C-3382)
  • City University of New York
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
contextual bias, primacy effect, expectancy effects, observer effect, fingerprint recognition, confession, eyewitness memory, expert opinion, judicial 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