Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications

Dror, Itiel E.; Charlton, David; Péron, Ailsa E.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017

Cited by 388 publications

(289 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

267

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since actual decisions are often oneshot and made in the presence of both irrelevant and relevant information, this suggests that experimental explorations of consistency using a within subject design should control for order effects to improve accuracy of results. Hence studies which only expose subjects first to relevant information, and then to all information, relevant as well as irrelevant, without counterbalancing, such as Dror, Charlton and Péron [3], may be overstating the degree of inconsistency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, such effects have also been demonstrated in studies using experts as subjects. Dror, Charlton and Péron [3] for example showed that fingerprint experts could change decisions regarding identification of subjects once presented with extraneous information. Jørgensen and Grimstad [9] similarly showed that estimates by expert software developers of time required for software development could depend on the presence of irrelevant information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Contingent Choices Consistent?

Banerjee

Das

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A contingent plan is consistent if the specification for any particular contingency in the plan is invariant to the set of alternative contingencies or, equivalently, is independent of irrelevant information emerging from alternative contingencies or choice problems. Our experiments show that consistency may be obtainable when choice problems are complete, with monetary and immediate outcomes, but is likely to face violation in more complex settings. We further found that decisions are more likely to change when irrelevant information arises rather than subsides, and that any observed failure of consistency has the use of irrelevant information in decisionmaking at its core.JEL Classifications: C91, D01, D03, D81, G11

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Contingent Choices Consistent?

Banerjee

Das

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only two empirical field studies of this sort have been conducted Dror, Charlton, & Péron, 2006;see Dror & Rosenthal, 2008, for their metaanalysis). The first study used the Mayfield case to provide a context that suggested that two similar prints were not from the same source.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The vision in "blind" justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition

Dror

Cole

2010

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…22 Exposure to such domain-irrelevant information has a demonstrated tendency to shape the interpretation of the analyst, even in circumstances where the underlying techniques are (otherwise) demonstrably reliable (Dror, Charlton and Peron 2006). The failure to disclose (or address) threats from contextual biases and cognitive processing is compounded to the extent that incriminating opinions are often represented as independent corroboration of guilt (Cunliffe 2013;Edmond, Searston, Tangen and Dror 2013).…”

Section: Reliability and Technological Determinismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justicia’s Gaze: Surveillance, Evidence and the Criminal Trial

Edmond

Roque

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the use of the products of surveillance, primarily images, as evidence within the criminal trial. These products, whether static images, video or voice recordings, are increasingly being mediated for the fact-finder via 'experts', proffering an opinion about the meaning of some surveillance image, artefact or trace. Common law courts, including those in Australia, the UK, Canada, and the US, have been surprisingly accommodating towards such evidence-allowing incriminating opinions to be presented by witnesses with questionable or unsubstantiated 'expertise'. Institutional and judicial responses tend to be inattentive to the reliability of such evidence, and display a misplaced faith in the capacity of traditional trial safeguards to expose and manage the weaknesses inherent in this type of evidence. In looking at the ways in which courts use CCTV images, voice recordings and other traces generated by surveillant assemblages, this paper offers a legal site for consideration that has not featured prominently in recent surveillance literature. It suggests that the preoccupations generated by the ubiquitous nature of everyday surveillance do not always map cleanly onto the use of surveillance artefacts in the criminal justice system. At the same time this paper explores how ideas and concepts familiar to the analysis of surveillance techniques, cultures, imaginaries and practices might inform our understanding of the criminal trial and its related processes. Fundamentally concerned with the value of such evidence, this paper argues that given the premium placed upon accuracy and fairness within the criminal trial, the state should be able to guarantee the basic trustworthiness of 'expert' opinions before interpretations derived from surveillant assemblages are admitted to assist with proof of identity and guilt.

show abstract

Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications

Cited by 388 publications

References 8 publications

Are Contingent Choices Consistent?

Are Contingent Choices Consistent?

The vision in "blind" justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition

Justicia’s Gaze: Surveillance, Evidence and the Criminal Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About