Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: The impact of administrator knowledge

Abstract

Prior knowledge of the likely or expected outcome of a forensic investigation has been shown to produce biases in results obtained, reducing objectivity within the forensic sciences. The wide prevalence of such cognitive biases has long been recognised by social psychologists, but its significance is only now gaining appreciation within forensic science communities. It is therefore timely to draw attention to the power of cognitive biases found in a study of the influence of administrator expectations on photographic identifications. Data are presented to show that when a line-up administrator knows the identity and position of a target within a line-up that target is more than twice as likely to be selected compared with when the administrator is kept 'blind'. These findings, taken together with related studies, support the recommendation that all forensic analyses are made 'double-blind'-a method that has proven to be effective at reducing such effects within the social science literature.

The Social Psychology of False Confessions

“…To sum up, an emerging body of research has suggested that "forensic confirmation biases" are pervasive and has inspired the recommendation that all lay witnesses and forensic examiners, as a matter of practice, be blinded to case information concerning confessions and other contextual cues (Kassin, Dror, & Kukucka, 2013;Saks, Risinger, Rosenthal, & Thompson, 2003; with similar regard to the importance of having eyewitness lineup identifications conducted by a blind administrator, see Canter, Hammond, & Youngs, 2013;Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998).…”

The science behind Bayley v The Queen (2016)

“…This willingness to choosealong with the associated consequencesis exacerbated when the photoboard does not contain the perpetrator. Furthermore, the photoboard administrator's expectations can also affect eyewitnesses' choices; when the administrator knows the suspect's identity, eyewitnesses are more than twice as likely to choose the suspect than any other photoboard member, regardless of the actual guilt of the suspect (Austin, Zimmerman, Rhead, & Kovera, 2013;Canter, Hammond, & Youngs, 2013), and they are more confident in their decision (Charman & Quiroz, 2016). In a broader context, the influence of expectations on decision-making has also been studied in forensic science (for a review, see National Research Council, 2009).…”

Capacidades dinámicas de la organización de la literatura: y un modelo propuesto

“…Distintas investigaciones orientadas hacia diferentes áreas de la teoría y el estudio de las organizaciones han señalado la influencia de los sesgos cognitivos sobre el comportamiento y la actuación de sus directivos, gerentes o líderes. Por ejemplo, en los procesos de formulación estratégica (Schwenk, 1984(Schwenk, ,1988Duhaime & Schwenk, 1985;Mintzberg et al 1998;Bukszar, 1999;Keil et al, 2007;Reitzig & Sorenson, 2013), entrada a nuevos mercados e internacionalización de la empresa ( omas et al, 2007), inicios de nuevos negocios y emprendimiento (Busenitz & Barney, 1997;Simon et al, 1999;Bryant, 2007;Kannadhasan et al, 2014), ciclo de vida y supervivencia de la empresa (Vidar & Lechner, 2013), establecimiento de alianzas estratégicas (Menguzzato & Urra, 2004;Kumar y Nathwani, 2012), contabilidad y control de gestión (López et al, 2016), en los trabajos de auditoría (Knapp & Knapp, 2012), en las decisiones de inversión (Alcalá, 2014;Useche, 2014;Otuteye & Siddiquee, 2015, Jain, Jain & Jain, 2015, gestión del conocimiento (Canter, Hammond & Youngs, 2013), marketing (Gurău, 2015), valoración de riesgos en la adopción de decisiones estratégicas (Krueger & Dickson, 1994;Busenitz, 1999), equipos de alto nivel de gestión intercultural (Strutton & Carter, 2013), análisis de riesgos (Kannadhasan et al, 2014;Montibeller & Von Winterfeldt, 2015) y en el diseño organizativo (Zapata & Canet, 2009;Zapata et al, 2015), entre otras investigaciones.…”