Letter to the Editor— Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking ( LSU ) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making
Open accessThe 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 et al., 2015
The letter (p. 2) says LSU begins with trace evidence before reference material, working ‘from the evidence to the suspect.’ It does not establish that LSU ensures evidence, rather than the suspect, drives cognition: on p. 3 it describes limiting the potential for circular reasoning and minimizing bias, not eliminating them. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMinimizing the impact of cognitive bias at its source entails avoiding or minimizing the things that trigger the bias, often achieved through context management.
“Minimizing the impact of cognitive bias at its source entails avoiding (or at least minimizing) the things that trigger the bias, and this is often achieved through ‘context management’ (e.g., I. E. Dror et al., 2015; Gilbert, 1993).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror et al., 2015
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
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
Council, N. R. (2009) · CrimRxiv · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.b2d683d2 · Cited by 1,461 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [3]3. Dror IE. Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science. Forensic Sci Policy Manag 2013;4:105 -13.
- [4]4. Thompson W. What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Aust J Forensic Sci 2011;43:123 -34.
- [5]5. Dror IE. Combating bias: the next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. J Forensic Sci 2012;57(1):276 -7.
- [6]6. Krane D, Ford S, Gilder J, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:1006 -107.
- [7]7. Ulery B, Hicklin A, Roberts MA, Buscaglia JA. Changes in latent fingerprint examiners ' markup between analysis and comparison. Forensic Sci Int 2015;247:54 -61. Itiel E. Dror, 1 Ph.D.; William C. Thompson, 2 Ph.D., J.D.; Christian A. Meissner, 3 Ph.D.; Irv Kornfield, 4 Ph.D.; Dan Krane, 5 Ph.D.; Michael Saks, 6 Ph.D.; and Michael Risinger, 7 J.D. 1 Center for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, London, U.K. 2 Criminology, Law and Society, University of California -Irvine, Irvine, CA 3 Psychology Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 4 Department of Biology and Molecular Forensics, University of Maine, Orono, ME 5 Biological Sciences Department, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 6 College of Law and Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 7 School of Law, Seton Hall University, Newark, NJ E-mails: i.dror@ucl.ac.uk; itiel@cci-hq.com
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
Curley, L. J., Munro, J., & Dror, I. E. (2022) · Medicine, Science and the Law · doi:10.1177/00258024221080655 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Self-citationBiased 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-citationHuang, C.-Y., & Bull, R. (2021) · Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2020.1770634 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach
Taylor, M. K. (2024) · doi:10.6028/nist.ir.8503 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Quantitative evaluation of footwear evidence: Initial workflow for an end‐to‐end system
Venkatasubramanian, G., Hegde, V., Lund, S. P., Iyer, H., & Herman, M. (2021) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14802 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Iowa State University (US)
- University of Maine (US)
- Wright State University (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Seton Hall University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Risinger, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-06-18
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1111-1112
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2169761526
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, forensic decision-making, bias mitigation, decision support system
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Bias, 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
