Crime: Dror (2006) Study - Topic 2

Question 1

What did Dror suggest?

Answer 1

Context could also bias decisions and lead to errors being made.

Question 2

What did Dror find?

(Overall)

Answer 2

Confirmation bias affected the fingerprint analysis of the participants.

Question 3

Who were the participants?

Answer 3

5 volunteer fingerprint experts

(followed for 12 months).

Question 4

Why were the participants chosen?

Answer 4

BECAUSE:
Unfamiliar with Mayfield’s fingerprint.
(Suspect for 9/11 = falsely accused of 2004 train bombing).

MEANT:
Researchers could covertly identify a definite match they had made earlier in their careers.

Question 5

Evaluate Pros / Cons with Participants used?

Answer 5

EVALUATION:

Pros:
-> Volunteer - more willing
-> experts

Cons:
-> Only 5 - bias

Question 6

What expectations were the participants given?

Answer 6

TOLD TO:
Examine a set of prints taken from a crime scene to see if they were a match.

(Seen 5 yrs before = stated a definite match).

EXPECTED:
Prints = not match.

Question 7

Describe the procedure

Answer 7

1- 5 experts approached by colleague & asked to examine a pair of fingerprints.

2- Given a latent print from a crime scene and print example from a suspect (Mayfield).

3- Fingerprints = pair of prints previously recorded as definite match 5 years ago.

4- Context was manipulated = told that the 2 prints = pair of prints wrongly identified by the FBI as the Madrid Bomber = giving expectation of a non-match.

Question 8

What did the results show?

Answer 8

AGREED W/ ORIGIONAL DECISION:
1 in 5 (20%) = match

DISAGREEED W/ ORGIONAL DECISION:
4 in 5 (80%) = not a match

Question 9

What was concluded?

Answer 9

The same fingerprint examiner could reach a different conclusion when the same evidence was presented (even without manipulating the context), showing evidence of being affected by confirmation bias.