Mind-set - How bias leads to errors in friction ridge comparisons
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..
Mind-set is a term used in the friction ridge discipline to describe a confirmation bias in which an examiner makes early decisions about their interpretation of a mark but fails to update or reconsider those decisions in light of additional information. This most often occurs during the analysis of a mark when an examiner makes decisions (such as orientation or anatomical source of a mark) to help expedite a manual search or set parameters for an automated search, but fails to re-evaluate these decisions if the initial screening of available exemplars does not yield a comparable area, potentially leading to a miss or an erroneous exclusion. Mind-set can also occur when an examiner believes a comparison may be an identification early in the comparison process and employs poor comparison habits to convince themselves it is true, often creating or adapting comparison notes after seeing the exemplar, straining logic to justify their decision, and potentially leading to an erroneous identification. A recent black box study on palmar comparison accuracy and reliability noted both behaviors in the annotations and notes provided by some study participants. Examples are provided in this paper to serve as a reminder to examiners to not allow mind-set to lead them into errors. Particularly given the high false negative error rates reported throughout the literature, examiners need to make re-considering their initial analysis before rendering an exclusion decision part of their comparison routine.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:318 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Forensic science international - 318(2021) vom: 15. Jan., Seite 110545 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Eldridge, Heidi [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 12.05.2021 Date Revised 12.05.2021 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110545 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM319045331 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM319045331 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225170626.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110545 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1063.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM319045331 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33339631 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0379-0738(20)30407-2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Eldridge, Heidi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Mind-set - How bias leads to errors in friction ridge comparisons |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 12.05.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 12.05.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a Mind-set is a term used in the friction ridge discipline to describe a confirmation bias in which an examiner makes early decisions about their interpretation of a mark but fails to update or reconsider those decisions in light of additional information. This most often occurs during the analysis of a mark when an examiner makes decisions (such as orientation or anatomical source of a mark) to help expedite a manual search or set parameters for an automated search, but fails to re-evaluate these decisions if the initial screening of available exemplars does not yield a comparable area, potentially leading to a miss or an erroneous exclusion. Mind-set can also occur when an examiner believes a comparison may be an identification early in the comparison process and employs poor comparison habits to convince themselves it is true, often creating or adapting comparison notes after seeing the exemplar, straining logic to justify their decision, and potentially leading to an erroneous identification. A recent black box study on palmar comparison accuracy and reliability noted both behaviors in the annotations and notes provided by some study participants. Examples are provided in this paper to serve as a reminder to examiners to not allow mind-set to lead them into errors. Particularly given the high false negative error rates reported throughout the literature, examiners need to make re-considering their initial analysis before rendering an exclusion decision part of their comparison routine | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Errors | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Friction ridge | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Latent prints | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mind-set | |
| 700 | 1 | |a De Donno, Marco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Champod, Christophe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Forensic science international |d 1983 |g 318(2021) vom: 15. Jan., Seite 110545 |w (DE-627)NLM000402508 |x 1872-6283 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:318 |g year:2021 |g day:15 |g month:01 |g pages:110545 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110545 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 318 |j 2021 |b 15 |c 01 |h 110545 | ||