Advertisement

The Retrospective Detective: Cognitive Bias and the Cold Case Investigation

  • Jason RoachEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Much of the available research on police decision-making in criminal investigations tends to focus on the detrimental effects of cognitive bias in live/current homicide investigations, and not on how it might have a negative influence on investigative decision-making in cold case homicides. This arguably indicates the existence of a common assumption that, live or cold, criminal investigations require the same decision-making and so are vulnerable to the same bias and in the same ways. This chapter suggests that the very term ‘cold case’ is likely to have a different psychological bias effect on investigators of cold cases and to pose potentially a far stronger negative influence on the decisions that are made in cold as opposed to live cases. The idea that cold cases necessitate a different ‘investigative mindset’ to live cases is posited here, along with the suggestion that investigator confidence is likely to be undermined by an inherent framing effect which comes into play when people are told that they are to investigate a cold case, that does not with live cases. Also discussed are the implications of having to make decisions based on the result of numerous previous decisions made by prior police investigators, might have on cold-case investigators. This may in turn serve to increase the likelihood of confirmation bias when investigators review cold cases as they make decisions within a far more pessimistic frame than they do for live cases. The chapter ends with a tentative research agenda for increasing our understanding of decision-making processes in cold case homicide investigations.

Keywords

‘Omincompetent detective’ Investigative decision-making Cognitive bias and the homicide investigator Cold case homicide investigations 

References

  1. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational Sources of Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations; the Need for Cognitive Closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators’ Judgments of Witness Reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(3), 561–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkin, H., & Roach, J. (2015). Spot the Difference: Comparing Current and Historic Homicide Investigations in the UK. Journal of Cold Case Review, 1(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  4. Begley, S. (2005). People Believe a ‘Fact’ That Fits Their Views Even If It’s Clearly False. Science Journal, p. b1 (Cited in Rossmo, 2009 ibid.).Google Scholar
  5. Borg, M. J., & Parker, K. F. (2001). Mobilizing Law in Urban Areas: The Social Structure of Homicide Clearance Rates. Law Society Review, 35, 435–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, R. C., Jensen, C. J., Burgette, L., & Burnett, K. (2014). Working Smarter on Cold Cases: Identifying Factors Associated with Successful Cold Case Investigations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(2), 375–381.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfield, R. (1999). Explaining the Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide: The Effects of Changing Domesticity, Women’s Status, and Domestic Violence Resources. Homicide Studies, 3(3), 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Fahsing, I., & Ask, K. (2013). Decision Making and Decisional Tipping Points in Homicide Investigations: An Interview Study of British and Norwegian Detectives. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, J. (2007). Police Investigation in Unexpected Childhood Deaths. In P. Sidebotham & P. Fleming (Eds.), Unexpected Death in Childhood: A Handbook for Practitioners (pp. 132–153). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Gaylor, D. (2002). Getting Away with Murder: The Re-investigation of Historic Undetected Homicide. London, UK: Home Office.Google Scholar
  12. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action Phases and Mindsets. In E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York: Guidford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and Implemental Mindsets: Cognitive Tuning Towards Congruous Thoughts and Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 119–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heur, R. J., Jr. (1999). Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
  15. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability and Salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioural Economics. The American Economic Review, 3(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Marshall, D. (2012). Effective Investigation of Child Homicide and Suspicious Deaths. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. McLean, M., & Roach, J. (2011, May). The Trouble with Being Human: Cognitive Bias and the Police Interview. The Investigator Magazine.Google Scholar
  20. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ousey, G. C., & Lee, M. R. (2009). To Know the Unknown: The Decline in Homicide Clearance Rates, 1980–2000. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roach, J. (2012). Long Interval Detections and Under the Radar Offenders. Journal of Homicide and Major Incident Investigation, 8(1). Hampshire: ACPO/Centrex.Google Scholar
  23. Roach, J. (2016). No Necrophilia Please, We’re British. In L. Mellor, A. Aggrawal, & E. Hickey (Eds.), Understanding Necrophilia: A Global, Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 87–102). San Diego: Cognella. Google Scholar
  24. Roach, J., & Pease, K. (2009). Necropsies and the Cold Case. In D. K. Rossmo (Ed.), Criminal Investigative Failures (pp. 327–348). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Roach, J., & Pease, K. (2014). Police Overestimation of Criminal Career Homogeneity. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 11(2), 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rossmo, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). Criminal Investigative Failures. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis—Testing Processes in Social Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stelfox, P. (2008). Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  30. Stelfox, P., & Pease, K. (2005). Cognition and Detection: Reluctant Bedfellows? In M. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime Science: New Approaches to Preventing and Detecting Crime. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  31. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning About a Rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, M. (2013). Homicide Detectives’ Intuition. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations