Hall and Player research

Question 1

what was the aim of the study?

Answer 1

to investigate whether the fingerprint experts were emotionally affected by the case details in the report AND whether emotional context would bias the judgements made by expert analysts

Question 2

What was the sample of the study?

Answer 2

• 70 fingerprint experts working for the Metropolitan Police Fingerprint Bureau
• experience ranged from less than 3 months to over 30 years
• most dealt with crimes ranging from burglary to terrorism - 12 were managers
• all were volunteers who were randomly allocated to groups of 8 and data was collected anonymously

Question 3

What happened during the procedure?

Answer 3

• a fingermark was scanned and superimposed onto an image of a £50 note so that the background image obscured most of the ridge detail
• a separate sample of experts confirmed that the fingermark was of poor quality and an uncertain match to a set of 10 prints
• each participant was given a test mark card with the 10 print fingerprint, crime scene report and the fact that the fingermark was from the right forefinger
• there were two conditions; low emotional context (the suspect tried to pay for goods with forged £50 note but was spotted by the cashier and quickly decamped) high emotional context (similar to the first one but instead the suspect fired two shots at the cashier before decamping)

Question 4

what were the findings from the research?

Answer 4

• 52% of the 30 who had read the high emotion context said that they felt affected by the information
• 6% of those who read the low emotion context said that they felt affected by the information
• no significant decision was found between the relationship of the emotional context and decision making

Question 5

what did Hall and Player conclude?

Answer 5

emotional context does affect the experts’ feelings but does not influence the final outcome of their analysis

Question 6

how can we combat expectation - independent analysis of the latent mark and comparison print (Dror)?

Answer 6

the latent mark should be viewed in isolation and then subsequently review this analysis after seeing the comparison print - this is because when viewing the comparison print beforehand, fewer key elements of the latent mark was identified by setting up cognitive expectations that affect the attention guded visual search

Question 7

how can we combat circular reasoning and bias - the filler control method (Dror)?

Answer 7

suggests that the examiner should be given six sample prints consisting of the comparison print from the suspect - similar to the lineup method; reduced subjectivity as the experts are working blind

Question 8

how can we combat context effects - working in isolation from other evidence and conclusions?

Answer 8

suggests that the examiner should be unaware of crime scene information and avoid contact with the victims and their families
furthermore, the verifier should also be unaware of this information but also the initial conclusion from the examiner - this reduces confirmation bias which is finding evidence of a match between prints

Question 9

what are the strengths of this study?

Answer 9

• highly ethical - participants were volunteers so were willing to take part, reference numbers were used instead of participant names to assure confidentiality, potential harm to participants is unlikely as they are already working in forensics
• the sample is valid; participants have a large range of experience

Question 10

what are the weaknesses of this study?

Answer 10

• lacks ecological validity - the £50 note was the only evidence used, participants were made aware of where the fingermark came from (right forefinger) and they were also aware that the case was not a current one - this could have affected their motivation towards the case
• the sample lacks population validity as participants were volunteers - unlikely to be representative of the rest of he work place - working with criminal evidence is a demanding job so unlikely that they would have the free time