Hall and Player Flashcards
What is the key background research to Hall and Player?
Dror and cognitive biases
What is the aim of Hall and Player?
to test if context had an effect on fingerprint identification by fingerprint experts
What is the method?
lab experiment - BUT designed to be as naturalistic as possible
What makes this study naturalistic?
- happened during work hours
- typical fingerprint examination room
What is the IV?
whether the participant was allocated the low context or high context
What are the three DVs?
- reading the examination report prior to analysis
- a match, not a match, or insufficient
- confidence
What is the sampling method?
volunteer
What is the sample?
70 fingerprint experts working for Metropolitan Police
evaluate the sample (+ technique)
strengths:
- low chance of attrition
- relatively large = more representative = more generalisable = population validity
weaknesses:
- only a certain type of person volunteers = less representative = less generalisable = lack population validity
What was the amount of participants per condition?
35 in each
What were the materials for this study?
- a finger impression from a known source superimposed on a scanned image of a £50 note
- obscured ridge detail
- fingerprint magnifying glass
- Russell comparator
What is the procedure?
- randomly assigned and asked to treat as a normal day
- low context scenario:
forgery - high context scenario:
murder - envelope given with examiners report - feedback sheet
What are the results?
- 81.4% read the crime scene examination before the analysis
- 52% in high context felt affected by report
- 6% in low context felt affected by report
What are the conclusions?
there is a relationship between the type of context and the perceived effect on the experts
evaluate according to ethics
- confidentiality upheld
- always a reasecher present with participants = PFH
- highly ethical!!
- not put under any more stress than normally
How is Dror unethical?
the amount of suspects unfairly or wrongly convicted due to biases fingerprint analysts
evaluate according to validity
- lacks ecological validity: materials = real life applicable & only one fingerprint = not realistic
- internal validity: naturalistic - same print BUT demand characteristics as Ps knew it was an experiment
evaluate according to reliability
standardised procedure = extremely reliable
- position of print
- feedback sheet
- crime report
evaluate data collected
QUANTITATIVE!!
strengths: objective, easy to analyse and compare
weaknesses: no reasoning behind why high context effects analysis
evaluate according to usefulness
- highly useful for forensic applications HOWEVER
- only useful for fingerprints and not other forensic tests e.g., blood
- Dror also less useful as used students not experts
evaluate according to methodology
lab experiment
strengths:
- control & standardisation = replicable AND reliable
- naturalistic elements
weaknesses:
- still an artificial task - lacks ecological validity
evaluate according to the individual vs situational debate
NOT influenced by situational factors BUT Dror (background) they were
evaluate according to free will vs determinism
Dror = deterministic - emotional context
Hall and Player = extortion of free will displayed - environmental determinism
evaluate according to psychology as a science
- tested hypotheses
- manipulated IV
- collected quantitative data
evaluate according the nature vs nurture
- ignores nature
- nurture = context dependency
