［美］Glinda S. Cooper, Vanessa Meterko 著 曹洪林 潘楚怡 译

【摘 要】认知偏差对法庭科学决策的影响程度是一个重要问题，对法庭科学的培训和实践活动具有重要影响。我们对法庭科学学科中关于认知偏差的文献进行了系统综述。最初的文献检索活动包括对3个数据库（2个社会科学数据库，1个科学数据库）的电子检索和对已确认论文参考文献进行的人工审查。所有文献首先由 2名独立的审查员对文章的标题和摘要进行初步筛选，然后进行全文审阅，最终确定了29篇文献作为本文的主要研究对象。其中2项研究的方法论存在严重缺陷，其严重程度足以导致该研究无法提供有用的证据信息。大多数研究（22 篇论文）的分析仅限于司法鉴定人（17 篇）、法庭科学实习生（2篇）或司法鉴定人和学生（3 篇）；其他研究的实验参与者多是大学生或普通人群。11 项研究涉及潜在指纹分析，在其他研究中，分别有1至3项研究涉及其他13个学科或领域。这一系列的研究成果为后续研究提供了1个强健的数据库。在已有研究中，有证据表明确认偏差会对分析人员的结论产生影响，特别是在以司法鉴定人或实习生为实验对象的研究中，当他们在得知了案件的特定信息如“犯罪嫌疑人” 或犯罪场景（有9项研究对该问题进行了检验）、使用样本的程序（4项研究）或先前鉴定的结论（4 项 研究）等都会对其产生影响。现有研究支持司法鉴定人容易受到各种类型确认偏差影响的观点，同时认为以下做法在司法鉴定过程中具有潜在的程序价值：减少鉴定人员对无关信息的接触，控制向鉴定人员提供相关信息的顺序，使用多个比对样本而不是单个可疑样本，检验人员应在对先前鉴定结果不知情的情况下对结果实现重复。

【关键词】法庭科学；认知偏差；确认偏差；情境信息；培训

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2020）06-0745-19

Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Glinda S. Cooper, Vanessa Meterko.Innocence Project. Translated by Honglin Cao, Key Laboratory of Evidence Science (China University of  Political Science and Law), Ministry of Education, Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization,  Beijing, China, 100088; and Chuyi Pan, Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of  Political Science and Law, Beijing, China, 100088.

【Abstract】The extent to which cognitive biases may influence decision-making in forensic science is an important question with implications for training and practice. We conducted a systematic review of the literature  on cognitive biases in forensic science disciplines. The initial literature search including electronic searching of  three databases (two social science, one science) and manual review of reference lists in identified articles. An initial  screening of title and abstract by two independent reviewers followed by full text review resulted in the identification  of 29 primary source (research) studies. A critical methodological deficiency, serious enough to make the study  too problematic to provide useful evidence, was identified in two of the studies. Most (n = 22) conducted analyses  limited to practitioners (n = 17), forensic science trainees (n = 2), or both forensic science practitioners and students  (n = 3); other analyses were based on university student or general population participants. Latent fingerprint  analysis was examined in 11 studies, with 1–3 other studies found in 13 other disciplines or domains. This set of  studies provides a robust database, with evidence of the influence of confirmation bias on analysts conclusions,  specifically among the studies with practitioners or trainees presented with case-specific information about the  “suspect” or crime scenario(in 9 of 11 studies examining this question), procedures regarding use of exemplar (s)  (in 4 of 4 studies), or knowledge of a previous decision (in 4 of 4 studies). The available research supports the idea  of susceptibility of forensic science practitioners to various types of confirmation bias and of the potential value  of procedures designed to reduce access to unnecessary information and control the order of providing relevant  information, use of multiple comparison samples rather than a single suspect exemplar, and replication of results by  analysts blinded to previous results.

【Key Words】Forensic science; Cognitive bias; Confirmation bias; Contextual information; Training