Cited by 50Forensic and Genetic ResearchLegal processes and jurisprudenceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

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

Open access
Jeanguenat, Amy M., Budowle, Bruce, Dror, Itiel E.·2017·Science & Justice

Abstract

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 cogn…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.005

Cites

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?

  • Knowing the DNA profile of the suspect can cause bias in developing the mixture of DNA profile from the crime scene so it fits the suspect's DNA profile.

    “Similarly, knowing the DNA profile of the suspect can cause bias in developing the mixture of DNA profile from the crime scene (the evidence), so it fits the suspect’s DNA profile (Jeanguenat et al., 2017).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Jeanguenat et al., 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeanguenat, A. M., Budowle, B., & Dror, I. E.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas Health Science Center (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Dror, Itiel E.
Venue
Science & Justice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
415-420
ISSN
1355-0306 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739073145
Cited by
50
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science & Justice (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cognitive biases, forensic DNA interpretation, forensic decision-making, DNA evidence, quality assurance, context management
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Bias, DNA Fingerprinting, Workflow

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