CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 95Deception detection and forensic psychologyLegal processes and jurisprudenceMemory Processes and Influences

Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners

Open access
Edmond, Gary, Towler, Alice, Growns, Bethany, Ribeiro, Gianni, Found, Bryan, White, David, Ballantyne, Kaye, Searston, Rachel A. +4 more·2017·Science & Justice
DOI 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Human factors and their implications for forensic science have attracted increasing levels of interest across criminal justice communities in recent years. Initial interest centred on cognitive biases, but has since expanded such that knowledge from psychology and cognitive science is slowly infiltrating forensic practices more broadly. This article highlights a series of important findings and insights of relevance to forensic practitioners. These include research on human perception, memory, context information, expertise, decision-making, communication, experience, verification, confidence, and feedback. The aim of this article is to sensitise forensic practitioners (and lawyers and judges) to a range of potentially significant issues, and encourage them to engage with research in these domains so that they may adapt procedures to improve performance, mitigate risks and reduce errors. Doing so will reduce the divide between forensic practitioners and research scientists as well as improve the value and utility of forensic science evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The participatory approach to communication has been criticized by some commentators due to the potential for bias it introduces.

    “This participatory approach to communication has been criticized by some commentators due to the potential for bias that it introduces (Ditrich, 2015;Dror, Kukucka, Kassin, & Zapf, 2018;Edmond et al., 2017).”

    From Communication, forensic science, and the law (2021) · cites this paper as Edmond et al., 2017

  • The nature of errors in forensic science is wide and varied, including scientific validity of methodologies, human factors such as bias and competency, and communication to criminal justice decision-makers.

    “Cases in both the media and literature demonstrate that the nature of such errors is wide and varied, from matters of scientific validity of methodologies [1], to errors influenced by human factors such as bias and competency [2, 3], to how results and information are communicated effectively to criminal justice decision‐makers [4].”

    From Quality issue management and disclosure in forensic science: A survey of practice and perceptions (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., Kemp, R. I., & Martire, K.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Victoria Police (AU)
Corresponding author
Edmond, Gary
ORCID
Venue
Science & Justice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
57
Issue
2
Pages
144-154
ISSN
1355-0306 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005
OpenAlex
W2559702471
Cited by
95
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science & Justice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
forensic science, cognitive science, human factors, cognitive biases, human perception, memory, contextual information, expertise, decision-making, communication, experience, verification, confidence, feedback, forensic practitioners, forensic evidence, error reduction
MeSH terms
Expert Testimony, Feedback, Humans, Memory, Professional Competence, Cognitive Science, Forensic Sciences

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