LAUSR

Editor, We welcome the debate on “task-irrelevant” contextual information and “cognitive bias” as our review and outlook on this topic is supposed to be thought-provoking. We acknowledge the important contributions made by Dror, Thompson, and others trying to discover, understand, and overcome cognitive bias in forensic decisions. At the same time, we have reservations about some of the claims made in the letter. First, the letter seems to imply that the definition of task-relevant information as proposed (nonunanimously) by the U.S. National Commission on Forensic Science in 2015 (1) has been adopted and adhered to everywhere in the world. Imposing norms and definitions will not prevent forensic scientists, as well as citizens in different countries, to deviate from rules and guidelines. Otherwise there would be no cognitive bias and no deviant behavior. Indeed, a study by Gardner, Kelley, Murrie, and Dror (2) illustrates inconsistencies in what forensic scientists deem as task-relevant. A sizable fraction of forensic scientists considered task-irrelevant contextual information differently from the definition given by the U.S. National Commission on Forensic Science (e.g., 6–10% would review suspects previous criminal history; 24.4–29.5% would review the suspect’s statement; and 19.5–30.1% would review a confession). Second, our concerns about methodological shortcomings in the literature on cognitive bias were not acknowledged in the Letter to the Editor. We will discuss each of these points in turn.