Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 157–163 | Cite as

Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hair

  • Larry S. Miller
Articles

Abstract

Several forms of expert forensic science evaluations exist that rely at least in part on the subjective opinion of the examiner. Human hair identification is one such examination. This paper considers possible sources of influence or bias that may be responsible for examiner errors. Data are reported of an experiment that compares the conventional examination procedure (known versus questioned samples) against an alternative procedure (a lineup of samples) designed to limit the influence of factors that contribute to error. The altenative procedure produced fewer incorrect conclusions (3.8%) than the conventional procedure (30.4%).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bisbing, R. E. (1982). The forensic identification and association of human hair. In R. Saferstein (Ed.),Forensic science handbook. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Brent v. White (1967). 276 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. La.).Google Scholar
  3. Brigham, J. C. (1983). Psychological factors in eyewitness identifications.Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 47–56.Google Scholar
  4. Camps, F. E. (1976).Gradwohl's legal medicine (3rd ed.). Chicago: John Wright and Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, N. (1981). Perceptions of situations: Situation prototypes and person—situation prototypes. In D. Magnusson (Ed.),Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Clifford, B. R., & Scott, J. (1978). Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352–359.Google Scholar
  7. Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 365–370.Google Scholar
  8. Curran, W. J., & Shapiro, E. D. (1982).Law, medicine, and forensic science (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, S. S., & Scott, J. E. (1983). Social scientists as expert witnesses: Their use, misuse, and sometimes abuse.Law and Policy Quarterly, 5, 181–214.Google Scholar
  10. Foster v. California (1969). 394 U.S. 440, 22 L. Ed. 2d 402, 89 S. Ct. 1127.Google Scholar
  11. Gaudette, B. D. (1974). An attempt at determing probabilities in human scalp hair comparison.Journal of Forensic Sciences, 19, 599.Google Scholar
  12. Gaudette, B. D. (1976). Probabilities and human pubic hair comparisons.Journal of Forensic Sciences, 21, 514.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert v. California (1967). 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, R. A. (1977).Self-fulfilling prophecies: Social psychological and physiological effects of expectations. Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Kirby v. Illinois (1972). 406 U.S. 682, 32 L. Ed. 2d 411, 92 S. Ct. 1877.Google Scholar
  16. Loftus, E. F. (1979).Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McFarland v. U. S. (1945). 150 F. 2d 593 (D. C. Cir.).Google Scholar
  18. Miller, L. S., Bass, W. M., & Miller, R. L. (1985).Human evidence in criminal justice (2d ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Moenssens, A. A., Inbau, F. E., & Starrs, J. E. (1986).Scientific evidence in criminal cases (3rd ed.). Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nesbitt, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
  21. Ogle, R. R., & Barnett, P. D. (1980). Probability and hair comparison. InAbstracts of the 55th semiannual seminar. Colorado Springs: American Academy of Forensic Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Parisi, N. (1985).Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1984. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  23. Reed, T. (1984). Eyewitness identifications of an armed robber within a biased police lineup.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 310–315.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenthal, R. (1974).On the social psychology of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Further evidence for pygmalian effects and their mediating mechanism. New York: M.S.S. Modular Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Sensabaugh, G. F. (1982). Biochemical markers of individuality. In R. Saferstein (Ed.),Forensic science handbook. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Snyder, M. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.Google Scholar
  27. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. (1978). Behavioral conformation in social interaction: From social perceptions to social reality.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148–162.Google Scholar
  28. U. S. v. Mara (1973). 410 U.S. 19.Google Scholar
  29. U. S. v. Wade (1967). 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, T., & Hammelmann, S. (1963). Indentification parades, part. 1.Criminal Law Review, 62, 479–483.Google Scholar
  31. Yarmey, A. D. (1979).The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry S. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeEast Tennessee State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations