Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Analyzing the Psychological and Social Contents of Evidence—Experimental Comparison between Guessing, Naturalistic Observation, and Systematic Analysis


Haas, Henriette S; Pisarzewska-Fuerst, Maja; Tönz, Patrick; Gubser-Ernst, Jutta (2015). Analyzing the Psychological and Social Contents of Evidence—Experimental Comparison between Guessing, Naturalistic Observation, and Systematic Analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(3):659-668.

Abstract

To improve inferences about psychological and social evidence contained in pictures and texts, a five-step algorithm—Systematic Analysis (SA)—was devised. It combines basic principles of interpretation in forensic science, providing a comprehensive record of signs of evidence. Criminal justice professionals evaluated the usefulness of SA. Effects of applying SA were tested experimentally with 41 subjects, compared to 39 subjects observing naturally (naturalistic observation) and 47 subjects guessing intuitively intuitive guessing group. After being trained in SA, prosecutors and police detectives (N = 217) attributed it a good usefulness for criminal investigation. Subjects (graduate students) using SA found significantly more details about four test cases than those observing naturally (Cohen’s d = 0.58). Subjects who learned SA well abducted significantly better hypotheses than those who observed naturally or who guessed intuitively. Internal validity of SA was a = 0.74. Applying SA improved observation significantly and reduced confirmation bias.

Abstract

To improve inferences about psychological and social evidence contained in pictures and texts, a five-step algorithm—Systematic Analysis (SA)—was devised. It combines basic principles of interpretation in forensic science, providing a comprehensive record of signs of evidence. Criminal justice professionals evaluated the usefulness of SA. Effects of applying SA were tested experimentally with 41 subjects, compared to 39 subjects observing naturally (naturalistic observation) and 47 subjects guessing intuitively intuitive guessing group. After being trained in SA, prosecutors and police detectives (N = 217) attributed it a good usefulness for criminal investigation. Subjects (graduate students) using SA found significantly more details about four test cases than those observing naturally (Cohen’s d = 0.58). Subjects who learned SA well abducted significantly better hypotheses than those who observed naturally or who guessed intuitively. Internal validity of SA was a = 0.74. Applying SA improved observation significantly and reduced confirmation bias.

Statistics

Altmetrics

Downloads

6 downloads since deposited on 21 Mar 2017
6 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Other titles:Systematisches Beobachten als Methode zur Analyse von psycho-sozialen Indizien in der Kriminalistik
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Uncontrolled Keywords:abduction of hypotheses; confirmation bias; experiment; forensic science; intuitive guessing; naturalistic observation; psychosocial evidence; systematic analysis
Language:English
Date:2015
Deposited On:21 Mar 2017 10:17
Last Modified:26 Mar 2017 05:04
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0022-1198
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/155 6-4029.12703
PubMed ID:25677757

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 276kB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations