CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Deception detection and forensic psychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMemory Processes and Influences

The forensic confirmation bias: A comparison between experts and novices

Open access
van den Eeden, Claire A. J., de Poot, Christianne J., van Koppen, Peter J.·2019·Journal of Forensic Sciences
DOI 10.1111/1556-4029.13817
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A large body of research has described the influence of context information on forensic decision‐making. In this study, we examined the effect of context information on the search for and selection of traces by students ( N = 36) and crime scene investigators ( N = 58). Participants investigated an ambiguous mock crime scene and received prior information indicating suicide, a violent death or no information. Participants described their impression of the scene and wrote down which traces they wanted to secure. Results showed that context information impacted first impression of the scene and crime scene behavior, namely number of traces secured. Participants in the murder condition secured most traces. Furthermore, the students secured more crime‐related traces. Students were more confident in their first impression. This study does not indicate that experts outperform novices. We therefore argue for proper training on cognitive processes as an integral part of all forensic education.

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 · 10.1111/1556-4029.13817

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Research has shown that experts in the justice and legal systems are just as susceptible to bias as novices.

    “Indeed, research has shown that experts in the justice and legal systems are just as susceptible to bias as novices (e.g., Eeden et al., 2019).”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Eeden et al., 2019

    The Discussion (page not available) reports that contextual information affected crime-scene behavior regardless of experience, and the Conclusion says the study found no evidence that professional experts outperformed novices. This supports the comparison for experienced crime scene investigators and forensic-science students, but not the broader claim about experts throughout the justice and legal systems. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 24

  1. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: prob- lems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2013;2:42-52.
  2. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice 2011;51(4):204-8.
  3. Fraser-Mackenzie PAF, Dror IE, Wertheim K. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identifica- tion judgments. Sci Justice 2013;53(2):144-53.
  4. Nakhaeizadeh S, Dror IE, Morgan RM. Cognitive bias in forensic anthro- pology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirma- tion bias. Sci Justice 2014;54(3):208-14.
  5. Kukucka J, Kassin SM, Zapf PA, Dror IE. Cognitive bias and blindness: a global survey of forensic science examiners. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2017;6(4):452-9.
  6. Van den Eeden CAJ, De Poot CJ, Van Koppen PJ. Forensic expecta- tions: investigating a crime scene with prior information. Sci Justice 2016;56(6):475-81.
  7. Ericsson KA. An introduction to Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: Its development, organization and content. In: Eric- sson KA, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman R, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cam- bridge University Press, 2006;3-21.
  8. Chi MTH. Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman A, editors. The Cam- bridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006;21-30.
  9. Santtila P, Korpela S, Hakkanen H. Expertise and decision-making in the linking of car crime series. Psychol Crime Law 2004;10(2):97-112.
  10. Lemaire P, Siegler RS. Four aspects of strategic change: contributions to children's learning of multiplication. J Exp Psychol Gen 1995;124 (1):83-97.
  11. Alexander PA. Can we get there from here? Educ Res 2003;32(8):3-4.
  12. Tuckey M, Brewer N. How schemas affect eyewitness memory over repeated retrieval attempts. Appl Cogn Psychol 2003;17(7):785-800.
  13. Dror IE. The paradox of human expertise: why experts can get it wrong. In: Kapur N, Pascual-Leone A, Ramachandran VS, editors. The paradox- ical brain. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011;177-88.
  14. Adelson B. When novices surpass experts: the difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1984;10 (3):483-95.
  15. Baber C. Distributed cognition at the crime scene. AI & Soc 2010;25 (4):423-32.
  16. Baber C, Butler M. Expertise in crime scene examination: comparing search strategies of expert and novice crime scene examiners in simu- lated crime scenes. Hum Factors 2012;54(3):413-24.
  17. Dror IE. A hierarchy of expert performance. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2016;5(2):121-7.
  18. Haberman SJ. The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biomet- rics 1973;29(1):205-20.
  19. Dror IE, Peron AE, Hind SL, Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching finger- prints. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005;19(6):799-809.
  20. Koehler DJ. Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psy- chol Bull 1991;110(3):499-519.
  21. Van den Eeden CAJ, De Poot CJ, Van Koppen PJ. From emergency call to crime scene: information transference in the criminal investigation. Forensic Sci Policy Manage 2017;8(3-4):79-89.
  22. Dror IE. Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science. Forensic Sci Policy Manage 2013;4(3-4):1-9.
  23. De Gruijter M, Nee C, De Poot CJ. Identification at the crime scene: the sooner, the better? Constructing scenarios with rapid identification infor- mation at the crime scene. Sci Justice 2017;57(4):296-306.
  24. Fahsing I, Ask K. Decision making and decisional tipping points in homicide investigations: an interview study of British and Norwegian detectives. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling 2013;10(2):155-65.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Eeden, C. A. J., de Poot, C. J., & van Koppen, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Research, Knowledge & Development Department Police Academy of the Netherlands Apeldoorn The Netherlands
  • Criminal Law and Criminology Department VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-17
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
120-126
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
DOI
10.1111/1556-4029.13817
OpenAlex
W2804118898
Cited by
68
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
contextual information, crime scene investigation, crime scene investigators, expert-novice comparison, trace collection, first impressions, forensic science education, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Professional Competence, Students, Bias, Forensic Sciences, Young Adult

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