Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Forensic cognitive bias is defined as “the class of effects through which an individual's preexisting beliefs, expectations, motives, and situational context influence the collection, perception, and interpretation of evidence during the course of a criminal case” (Kassin et al, 2013). Although ‘bias’ is conventionally used in the context of discrimination, cognitive bias does not necessarily pertain to errors due to negligence, misconduct or incompetence. Rather, cognitive biases are simply systematic errors in judgement that occur following the overreliance on heuristics (mental shortcuts that facilitate efficient problem solving), often subconscious in nature (Kunkler & Roy, 2023). Thus, not only are cognitive biases difficult to recognise and mitigate, but their subconscious nature also implies all are susceptible regardless of skill or ethics (Thallapureddy et al., 2023). As such, forensic cognitive bias and non-relevant contextual information can lead to errors in evidence analysis which can perhaps impact the reliability of forensic decision making. A previous systematic review of 29 research studies, identifying cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, influenced forensic analysts' conclusions (Cooper and Meterko, 2019). Cooper and Meterko’s (2019) review concluded that forensic scientists were susceptible to cognitive bias, proposing structural changes are necessitated to minimise its impact. The findings of this review support the implementation of blind testing procedures, independent verification, and limiting contextual bias to improve forensic accuracy. Following the publication of Cooper and Meterko (2019), Curley et al. (2020) ascertained that several studies on forensic bias are limited by small sample sizes, lack of proper controls, and low ecological validity. While cognitive bias is a concern in forensic science, Curley et al. (2020) argued that more robust research is needed to determine its true effect in practice, suggesting that better-designed studies, procedural safeguards, and interdisciplinary collaboration could ensure forensic decisions are as accurate and impartial as possible.