The Impact of Human–Technology Cooperation and Distributed Cognition in Forensic Science: Biasing Effects of AFIS Contextual Information on Human Experts *

Abstract:  Experts play a critical role in forensic decision making, even when cognition is offloaded and distributed between human and machine. In this paper, we investigated the impact of using Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) on human decision makers. We provided 3680 AFIS lists (a total of 55,200 comparisons) to 23 latent fingerprint examiners as part of their normal casework. We manipulated the position of the matching print in the AFIS list. The data showed that latent fingerprint examiners were affected by the position of the matching print in terms of false exclusions and false inconclusives. Furthermore, the data showed that false identification errors were more likely at the top of the list and that such errors occurred even when the correct match was present further down the list. These effects need to be studied and considered carefully, so as to optimize human decision making when using technologies such as AFIS.

[1]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The Paradoxical Brain: The paradox of human expertise: why experts get it wrong , 2011 .

[2]  C. Champod,et al.  Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. , 2011, Forensic science international.

[3]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  Special Abilities and Vulnerabilities in Forensic Expertise , 2011 .

[4]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The Use of Technology in Human Expert Domains: Challenges and Risks Arising from the Use of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems in Forensic Science , 2010 .

[5]  Itiel E Dror,et al.  Emotional Experiences and Motivating Factors Associated with Fingerprint Analysis , 2010, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  Itiel E. Dror.  On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes , 2009 .

[7]  Pat A Wertheim,et al.  Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE‐V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[8]  S. Harnad,et al.  Cognition distributed : how cognitive technology extends our minds , 2008 .

[9]  Lisa J Hall,et al.  Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making? , 2008, Forensic science international.

[10]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Offloading Cognition onto Cognitive Technology , 2008, ArXiv.

[11]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  C. Sulmont-Rossé,et al.  Impact of the arousal potential of uncommon drinks on the repeated exposure effect , 2008 .

[13]  Christopher J. Davis,et al.  Through the Eyes of Experts: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective on the Automation of Fingerprint Work , 2007, MIS Q..

[14]  Itiel E. Dror.  Introduction: Gold mines and land mines in cognitive technology , 2007 .

[15]  I. Dror.  Cognitive Technologies and the Pragmatics of Cognition , 2007 .

[16]  C. Champod,et al.  The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[17]  Itiel E. Dror.  Land mines and gold mines in cognitive technologies , 2007 .

[18]  Applied Lineup Theory , 2006 .

[19]  David Charlton,et al.  Why Experts Make Errors , 2006 .

[20]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[21]  Brandon Mayfield,et al.  A Review of the FBI ' s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case , 2006 .

[22]  The Prevalence and Potential Causes of Wrongful Conviction By Fingerprint Evidence , 2006 .

[23]  Chris Baber,et al.  Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition , 2006 .

[24]  I. Dror,et al.  When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top‐down processing on matching fingerprints , 2005 .

[25]  R. Malpass,et al.  EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION , 2005 .

[26]  Best Practice Recommendations for Eyewitness Evidence Procedures: New Ideas for the Oldest Way to Solve a Case , 2003 .

[27]  I. Dror,et al.  Object identification as a function of discriminability and learning presentations: the effect of stimulus similarity and canonical frame alignment on aircraft identification. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[28]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[29]  J. Krosnick,et al.  The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes , 1998 .

[30]  L. Joseph.  The Status of AFIS systems Worldwide : Issues of Organzation, Performance and Impact , 1995 .

[31]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[32]  H. Macfie,et al.  DESIGNS TO BALANCE THE EFFECT OF ORDER OF PRESENTATION AND FIRST-ORDER CARRY-OVER EFFECTS IN HALL TESTS , 1989 .

[33]  M L Dean,et al.  Presentation order effects in product taste tests. , 1980, The Journal of psychology.

[34]  K. A. Coney,et al.  Order-Bias: The Special Case of Letter Preference , 1977 .

[35]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of fingerprint experts' decision making , 1970 .

[36]  S. Becker.  Why an Order Effect , 1954 .