Cognitive challenges at the crime scene: The importance of social science research when introducing mobile technologies at the crime scene

Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences

Cognitive challenges at the crime scene: The importance of social science

research when introducing mobile technologies at the crime scene

de Gruijter, Madeleine; de Poot, Christianne J.

DOI

10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.026

Publication date

2019

Document Version

Final published version

Published in

Forensic Science International

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

de Gruijter, M., & de Poot, C. J. (2019). Cognitive challenges at the crime scene: The

importance of social science research when introducing mobile technologies at the crime

scene. Forensic Science International, 297, e16-e18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.026

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)

and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open

content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please

let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material

inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please contact the library:

https://www.amsterdamuas.com/library/contact/questions, or send a letter to: University Library (Library of the

University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Short

Communication

Cognitive

challenges

at

the

crime

scene:

The

importance

of

social

science

research

when

introducing

mobile

technologies

at

the

crime

scene

Madeleine

de

Gruijter

*

,

Christianne

J.

de

Poot

a

NetherlandsForensicInstitute,CrimeSceneInnovation,LaanvanYpenburg6,2497GB,DenHaag,TheNetherlands b

AmsterdamUniversityofAppliedSciences,ForensicScienceDepartment,Weesperzijde190,1097DZ,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands c

PoliceAcademyofTheNetherlands,ResearchandDevelopment,P.O.Box348,7301BBApeldoorn,TheNetherlands d

VUUniversityAmsterdam,CriminologyDepartment,DeBoelelaan1077,1081HVAmsterdam,TheNetherlands e

ResearchandDocumentationCenteroftheDutchMinistryofJusticeandSecurity,P.O.Box20301,2500EH,DenHaag,TheNetherlands

ARTICLE INFO Articlehistory:

Received20December2018

Receivedinrevisedform16January2019 Accepted21January2019

Availableonline6February2019 Keywords:

Crimesceneinvestigations mobiletechnologies humanfactor

ForensicScience ishighly focusedontechnological develop-ments, especially with regard to crime scene investigations. Researchinthisfieldmainlyfocusesontechnologiesthatsupport thevisualizationandanalysisof(latent)traces.Examplesofnew technologiesdesignedforrapidanalysisoftracesandforquickly obtaining identification information at the crime scene are so called rapid identification technologies. Recently developed mobilerapidanalysisdevicescangenerateidentification informa-tionduringanearlystageoftheinvestigation.Suchdevelopments createnewopportunitiesforCSIsatthecrimesceneandforthe investigation. It should, however, not be neglected that these technologiesneed to be handled by humans. Humans have to perceiveandselecttracesbeforetheycanserveasinputforthese devices,andhumansneedtocorrectlyinterprettheoutputandthe relevanceoftheevidenceforthecase.Inotherwords,thehuman factorplaysanimportantroleevenwhencompletetraceanalyses areconductedbymachines.Rapidtechnologiesfortraceanalysis do not change the fact that it is impossible to analyze every possibletrace and sample that could betaken from thecrime scene, and that CSIs constantly have to make choices. Their perceptions,observations,interpretations and decisionsdepend onscenariostheycanimagineandontheirroutines,beliefsand

experience[1].Theintroductionofnewidentificationtechnologies necessitatesthinkingabouttheinfluenceofthesetechnologieson perceptions,decisionsandinterpretationsandonthewayrapid analysisoptionschangethedynamicsofthecriminalinvestigation process.Ifwedonotunderstandtheunderlyingdecisionmaking processes,we arefaced withtherisk that suchpromising new devices impede instead of aid the investigation as wrongful interpretations of traces and analysis results can bias other componentsoftheinvestigation[2].

The introduction of newtechnologies at thecrime scene is accompanied by (new) cognitive challenges. The availabilityof mobile rapid analysis devices influences CSIs decision making processesand theirinterpretation oftheperceivedinformation. Recentstudieshavedemonstratedthatsocialscienceresearchis crucialinunderstandingcognitiveaspectsofForensicScienceand shouldreceivemoreattention.Inthiscommentary,wewilllink thisgeneralrequirementtotheabovementionedrapididenti fica-tiontechnologies.

1.Challenge1:guidinggoalsandexpectationsinfluencingthe perceptionoftraces

Personalexperiences,intentionsandavailableinformationcan giverisetoexpectancyeffects.Thisso-calledcontextinformation affectsperceptionanddecision makinginallkindsofsituations andcircumstances,alsoatthecrimescene(seeKassinetal.[3]for

*Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:m.de.gruijter@nfi.minvenj.nl(M.deGruijter). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.026

0379-0738/©2019ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

ForensicScienceInternational297(2019)e16–e18

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Forensic

Science

International

anoverviewofthesecontexteffectsintheforensicfield).Context effectsoccurbecausepeopleareinclinedtointerpreteventstofit theirexpectations,whicharebasedonavailableinformation,their training,experiencesandgoals.CSIscannotentera crimescene completely blank; they always use their experience, their intentionsandtheavailableinformationasareferencetointerpret their observations. This can be seen as top-down information processing.Ontheotherhand,CSIsadapttheirinterpretationsand theirfurthersearchforinformationonwhattheyobserve,which canbeseenasabottom-upprocess.Thesetop-downand bottom-upprocessesareintertwined.

Recentresearchhasdemonstratedthatexpectations,basedon context information about a crime, influence the search, the interpretationandtheselectionoftraces.Dependingonthecontext informationprovidedandtheexpectationoftheobserver,tracesor cluesareinterpretedconsistentwitheitheroneortheotherscenario [4,5]. Furthermore, important traces appear to be frequently overlookedwhentheyareleftatunexpectedplaces[6,7].

ExpectationsofCSIscannotonlybeinfluencedbyinformation providedatthecrimescene,butalsobynewgoalsaccompaniedby technologicalinnovations.Newanalysisdevicesmayforinstance shiftthefocusofCSIsfromabroadobservationofthecrimescene, toamoretargetedsearchfortracesthatcanbeanalyzedwiththese devices.Thisentailstheriskthatimportanttracesareoverlooked. Althoughsuchaneffecthasnotbeendemonstratedyet[8],more research into this aspect is desirable as the above-mentioned studies indicate an influence of expectations and experiential knowledge of CSIs on their observations and interpretations, regardlessoftechnologies.

2.Challenge2:decionsconcerningtheuseofthetechnology Oncetracesareobservedandperceivedasrelevant,thenext cognitivechallengerequiresagoodestimateoftherelevanceand thesuccess-rateofatrace.Giventhecurrentdevelopments,rapid DNA analyses conducted in a mobile device are less sensitive comparedtotraditionalanalysesinthelaboratory.Furthermore, theylacktheopportunitytosavepartofthesample.Thismeans thatuseoftherapidDNAanalysisdeviceshouldbeconsidered destructive. Therefore, knowledge about DNA success rates is essentialtomakeinformedanddeliberatedecisionsregardingthe useofarapidDNAanalysisdevice.Theurgeformoreresearchinto thistopicisdemonstratedinarecentstudyshowingthatCSIsdo notalwayshaveacorrectimpressionoftheDNAsuccessrateof differentsortsofDNAtraces.Asaconsequence,importanttraces withlowsuccessratesmaygetlostwhentheyareanalyzedwith rapidDNAtechnology[9].Obviously,supportformoreinformed decisionmakingiscrucial.AfirststepistakenbyMapesetal.[10] who suggest a decision support system when using rapid identification technologies. The findings of these studies show thegeneralurgeforresearchintodecisionmakingprocessesand supportsystemswhennewmobiletechnologiesareintroducedat thecrimescene.

3.Challenge3:subjectiveinterpretationsofanalysisresults Theinvestigationatthecrimesceneisanongoingprocessof observation,interpretationandadjustinghypotheses.Whentraces areeventuallyanalyzedduringthecrimesceneinvestigation,the finalcognitivechallengeconcernstheinterpretationoftheresults. Currently,theprocessofanalyzingtracesandinterpretingtrace resultsisseparatedtoavoidbias.ExpectationsofCSIs,asargued, influence the interpretation of the scene and its traces, and consequentlyalsothemostplausiblescenario.Thisscenariomay influencethewaynewincominginformationisinterpreted,dueto well-known cognitive processes suchas confirmation bias and

beliefperseverance[11].RecentresearchindicatesthatCSIsattach greatimportancetoobtaineddatabase-matches[7].Theriskhere lays in the fact that such results may become leading in the investigationwhentheyareprovidedtoosoon,whilealternative explanationsforthefindingsshouldstillbeconsidered.Afterall, thepresenceofaperson’sDNAorfingerprintdoesnotmeanthis personcommittedthecrimeasthescenecanbefulloftracesleft bypersonslegitimatelyconnectedtothescene(seealsoGill[12]). Inaddition,thisresearchshowsthatreceivinganalysisresultsin situleadstofewertracesbeingcollectedthereafter[5].Thisshould notbeproblematiciftheanalyzedtracesareindeedleftbythe perpetratorandthusprovideinvestigativeleads,butthisapproach counteracts when moretrace information is requiredfor other purposessuchasreconstruction,discriminationbetween scenari-osorforintelligencepurposes[1,13].

4.Facingchallenges:thewayforward

Evenin thedomainof forensics,which is oftenregarded as objective,crimesceneinvestigations,decisionsregardingfurther analysesoftraces,andtheinterpretationoftheanalysesresultsare accompaniedbycognitivechallenges.Thisshouldbeunderstood properlywhenintroducingnewtechnologiesatthescene.

Theintroductionofnewtechnologiesthatenabletraceanalyses and trace comparisons at the crime scene have far-reaching consequencesforthedesignofthecriminalinvestigationprocess andfortheprofessionalsinvolvedinit.Tasksandprocessesthat have been increasingly separated since the middle of the last centurywillgetmoreintegrated.Thisenablesanefficientuseof the available information, but also involves risks as the above mentioned studies show. It is only when we understandthese processesatthecrimesceneand,theroleofthehumanfactorin forensicsandinthecriminaljusticesystem,thatwewillbeableto usenewtechnologiesinitsmosteffectiveway.

CRediTauthorshipcontributionstatement

Madeleine de Gruijter: Writing - original draft, Writing -review&editing.ChristianneJ.dePoot:Writing-originaldraft, Writing-review&editing.

References

[1]O.Delémont,S.Bitzer,M.Jendley,O.Ribaux,Intelligence-basedcrimescene examination,TheRoutledgeInternationalHandbookofForensicIntelligence andCrimonology,Routledge,Abingdon,Oxon;NewYork,NY,2018,pp.86–101. [2]I.E.Dror,Biasesinforensicexperts,Science360(6386)(2018)243,doi:http://

dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443.

[3]S.Kassin,I.E.Dror,J.Kukucka,Theforensicconfirmationbias:problems, perspectivesandproposedsolutions,J.App.Res.Mem.Cognit.2(1)(2013)45– 52,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.

[4]C. van den Eeden, C.J. de Poot, P. van Koppen, Forensic expectations: investigatingacrimescenewithpriorinformation,Sci.Justice56(6)(2016) 475–481,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003.

[5]M.deGruijter,C.Nee,C.J.dePoot,Rapididentificationinformationandits influenceontheperceivedcluesatacrimescene:anexperimentalstudy,Sci. Justice 57 (6) (2017) 421–430, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-jus.2017.05.009.

[6]M.deGruijter,C.J.dePoot,H.Elffers,Reconstructingwithtraceinformation. Doesrapididentificationinformationleadtobettercrimereconstructions?J. Invest.Psychol.OffenderProfiling13(3)(2016)1–16,doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jip.1471.

[7]M.deGruijter,C.J.dePoot,Theuseofrapididentificationinformationatthe crimescene;similaritiesanddifferencesbetweenEnglishandDutchCSIs, Policing Soc. Int. J. Res. Policy (2018), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10439463.2018.1434177.

[8]M.deGruijter,C.J.dePoot,Theinfluenceofnewtechnologiesonthevisual attentionofCSIsperformingacrimesceneinvestigation,J.ForensicSci.61(1) (2016)43–51,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12904.

[9]A.Mapes,C.J.dePoot,RapidDNAanaysisatamockcrimescene:theimpacton collectingandanalyzingDNAtraces,RapidDNATechnologiesattheCrime Scene.‘CSI’FictionMatchingReality,Proefschriftmaken.nl,Amsterdam,2017, pp.80–109.

[10]A.Mapes,R.Stoel,P.Vergeer,C.J.dePoot,M.Huyck,Decisionsupportforusing mobilerapidDNAanalysisatthecrimescene,Sci.Justice59(2018)29–45,doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.05.003.

[11]R.Nickerson,Confirmationbias:aubiquitousphenomenoninmanyguises,Rev. Gen.Psychol.2(1998)175–220,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.

[12]P.Gill,DNAevidenceandmiscarriagesofjustice,ForensicSci.Int.294(2019) 1–3,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.12.003.

[13]Q. Rossy, D. Décary-Hétu, O. Delémont, M. Mulone, The Routledge InternationalHandbookofForensicIntelligenceandCriminology,Routledge, Abingdon,Oxon;NewYork,NY,2018.