Cooper Glinda S, Meterko Vanessa
Innocence Project, 40 Worth St, Suite 701, New York, NY, 10013, United States.
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Apr;297:35-46. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
The extent to which cognitive biases may influence decision-making in forensic science is an important question with implications for training and practice. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cognitive biases in forensic science disciplines. The initial literature search including electronic searching of three databases (two social science, one science) and manual review of reference lists in identified articles. An initial screening of title and abstract by two independent reviewers followed by full text review resulted in the identification of 29 primary source (research) studies. A critical methodological deficiency, serious enough to make the study too problematic to provide useful evidence, was identified in two of the studies. Most (n = 22) conducted analyses limited to practitioners (n = 17), forensic science trainees (n = 2), or both forensic science practitioners and students (n = 3); other analyses were based on university student or general population participants. Latent fingerprint analysis was examined in 11 studies, with 1-3 other studies found in 13 other disciplines or domains. This set of studies provides a robust database, with evidence of the influence of confirmation bias on analysts conclusions, specifically among the studies with practitioners or trainees presented with case-specific information about the "suspect" or crime scenario (in 9 of 11 studies examining this question), procedures regarding use of exemplar(s) (in 4 of 4 studies), or knowledge of a previous decision (in 4 of 4 studies). The available research supports the idea of susceptibility of forensic science practitioners to various types of confirmation bias and of the potential value of procedures designed to reduce access to unnecessary information and control the order of providing relevant information, use of multiple comparison samples rather than a single suspect exemplar, and replication of results by analysts blinded to previous results.
认知偏差在多大程度上可能影响法医学中的决策是一个重要问题，对培训和实践具有重要意义。我们对法医学科中关于认知偏差的文献进行了系统综述。最初的文献检索包括对三个数据库（两个社会科学数据库、一个科学数据库）进行电子检索，并对已识别文章中的参考文献列表进行人工审查。由两名独立评审员先对标题和摘要进行初步筛选，然后进行全文评审，最终确定了29项主要来源（研究）研究。在其中两项研究中发现了一个严重的方法学缺陷，严重到使该研究存在太多问题而无法提供有用证据。大多数（n = 22）研究的分析仅限于从业者（n = 17）、法医学实习生（n = 2），或法医学从业者和学生两者（n = 3）；其他分析则基于大学生或普通人群参与者。11项研究考察了潜指纹分析，另外13个其他学科或领域中有1 - 3项其他研究。这组研究提供了一个强大的数据库，有证据表明确认偏差对分析师结论的影响，特别是在那些向从业者或实习生提供有关“嫌疑人”或犯罪场景的特定案件信息的研究中（在11项研究中有9项研究考察了这个问题）、关于使用样本的程序（在4项研究中有4项研究），或对先前决策的了解（在4项研究中有4项研究）。现有研究支持这样一种观点，即法医学从业者容易受到各种类型的确认偏差影响，以及旨在减少获取不必要信息和控制提供相关信息顺序的程序、使用多个比较样本而非单个嫌疑人样本以及让对先前结果不知情的分析师重复结果的潜在价值。
