Commentary on: Thornton JI. Letter to the editor—a rejection of “working blind” as a cure for contextual bias. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(6):1663

Thompson, William C.; Ford, Simon; Gilder, Jason R.; Inman, Keith; Jamieson, Allan; Koppl, Roger; Kornfield, Irv; Krane, Dan E.; Mnookin, Jennifer L.; Risinger, D. Michael; Rudin, Norah; Saks, Michael J.; Zabell, Sandy L.

doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01679.x

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This perspective has been criticized as psychologically naïve in its failure to recognize that bias can occur without conscious awareness and can affect even well‐meaning and conscientious experts . Research indicates that people generally have a “blind spot” when it comes to recognizing their own biases and this appears also to be true of forensic scientists also .…”

Section: Subjectivity and Bias In Forensic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Thompson

Scurich

2019

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual bias has been widely discussed as a possible problem in forensic science. The trial simulation experiment reported here examined reactions of jurors at a county courthouse to cross‐examination and arguments about contextual bias in a hypothetical case. We varied whether the key prosecution witness (a forensic odontologist) was cross‐examined about the subjectivity of his interpretations and about his exposure to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant information. Jurors found the expert less credible and were less likely to convict when the expert admitted that his interpretation rested on subjective judgment, and when he admitted having been exposed to potentially biasing task‐irrelevant contextual information (relative to when these issues were not raised by the lawyers). The findings suggest, however, that forensic scientists can immunize themselves against such challenges and maximize the weight jurors give their evidence by adopting context management procedures that blind them to task‐irrelevant information.

show abstract

Section: Subjectivity and Bias In Forensic Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Thompson

Scurich

2019

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If we are unable to acknowledge and compensate for bias, we have no business in our profession to begin with, and certainly no legitimate plea to the indulgence of the legal system (47). This perspective has been criticized as psychologically na€ ıve in its failure to recognize that bias can occur without conscious awareness and can affect even well-meaning and conscientious experts (36,48,49). Research indicates that people generally have a "blind spot" when it comes to recognizing their own biases (50)(51)(52)) and this appears also to be true of forensic scientists also (43).…”

Section: Arguments Against Blindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Thompson

Scurich

2019

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextual bias has been widely discussed as a possible problem in forensic science. The trial simulation experiment reported here examined reactions of jurors at a county courthouse to cross-examination and arguments about contextual bias in a hypothetical case. We varied whether the key prosecution witness (a forensic odontologist) was cross-examined about the subjectivity of his interpretations and about his exposure to potentially biasing task-irrelevant information. Jurors found the expert less credible and were less likely to convict when the expert admitted that his interpretation rested on subjective judgment, and when he admitted having been exposed to potentially biasing taskirrelevant contextual information (relative to when these issues were not raised by the lawyers). The findings suggest, however, that forensic scientists can immunize themselves against such challenges and maximize the weight jurors give their evidence by adopting context management procedures that blind them to task-irrelevant information.

show abstract

“…A given forensic scientist could be a case manager, or an analyst, or could alternate between those roles (from case to case). We have argued on a number of occasions that separating functions in this manner would largely eliminate the "risk" that Dr. Champod associates with blinding procedures [4][5][6]. We are perplexed at his failure to address this key point in his editorial.…”

Section: Peer Reviewed Escholarshiporgmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, it has been suggested that different forensic scientists in the individual case be assigned to two different roles: case managers and analysts [4][5][6]. Case managers would participate in investigations in the manner that Dr. Champod contemplates but would not conduct or interpret examinations themselves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regarding Champod, editorial: “Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science”

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer reviewed eScholarship.orgPowered by the California Digital Library University of California Dear Dr. Barron, Regarding Champod, editorial: "Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science."In 2009, a report of the (U.S.) National Research Council declared that " [t]he forensic science disciplines are just beginning to become aware of contextual bias and the dangers it poses" [1]. The report called for additional research and discussion of how best to address this problem. Since that time, the literature on the topic of contextual bias in forensic science has begun to expand, and some laboratories are beginning to change procedures to address the problem. In his recent editorial in Science and Justice, Christophe Champod suggests that this trend has gone too far and threatens to "paralyse forensic science" [2]. We think his arguments are significantly overstated and deserve forceful refutation, lest they stand in the way of meaningful progress on this important issue.Dr. Champod opens by acknowledging that forensic scientists are vulnerable to bias. He says that he does not "want to minimize the importance of [research on this issue] and how it contributes to a better management of forensic science…" He continues by asking "...but should research remain focused on processes, or should we not move on to the basic understanding of the forensic traces?" He then comments on risks of "being focused on bias only." By framing the matter in this way, Dr. Champod creates a false dichotomy, and implies facts about the current state of funding and research that are simply not the case. He seems to be saying that currently all or most research funding and publication is directed toward problems of bias, and little or none toward "basic understanding of the forensic traces." Dr. Champod should know this is not the case, however, since (among other things) he is a co-author of a marvelous recently-released empirical study on fingerprint analysis funded by the (U.S.) National Institute of Justice [3]. Any perusal of NIJ grants, or the contents of leading forensic science journals, would not support Dr. Champod's apparent view of the current research world.It would of course be a mistake for all of the available funding for research on forensic science topics to be devoted to the potential effects of bias, but again, this is neither the case currently nor is it in our opinion likely to become the case in the future. To discuss the risks of focusing "on bias only," is simply raising a straw man when no one, not even the most ardent supporter of sequential unmasking or other approaches to the control of biasing information in forensic science practice, suggests focusing research "on bias only."That said, we do believe that the research record both in forensic science and in a variety of other scientific areas has reached a point that clearly establishes the pressing need for all forensic areas to address the problem of contextual bias. As Andrew Rennison, who was then the forensic science regulator for England ...

show abstract

Commentary on: Thornton JI. Letter to the editor—a rejection of “working blind” as a cure for contextual bias. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(6):1663

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence

Regarding Champod, editorial: “Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About