What Was The Nature Of Dr. Dror's Study?

1) What was the nature of Dr. Dror’s study? What did he tell the fingerprint examiners and what did his results show? What did Dr. Dror say about the role of expectations and how they affect our ability to process information accurately? Do you agree? Why or why not? Please be sure to support your responses with credible, scholarly, evidence.
The nature of Dr. Dror’s study is based on the notion that fingerprint analysis is susceptible to unintentional manipulation by human bias. The purpose of his study is to show that unconscious bias can impact fingerprint analysis. The results prove that it is possible for experts and examiners who evaluate fingerprint data to make honest mistakes. Dr. Dror conducted a study with experienced fingerprint
Dror was not trying to challenge fingerprint analysis as a science or its reliability but instead its ability to be influenced by the many elements that can affect those who examine the data. The possibility of falling vulnerable to psychological and cognitive bias exists when evaluating fingerprint data. External influences can cause an expert to make an unintentionally biased decision. Similarly, context, motivation, and emotions can distort perception and judgments causing experts to make mistakes in their evaluations (Ladwig, 2017). People can be corned into a frame of mind that can affect how they view and interpret information. Of course, this occurs on a subconscious level but is significant in evaluating the issues in fingerprint analysis. Therefore, it is important to apply and learn the cognitive and psychological influences in the processing of fingerprint analysis. There are many errors that experts can make in fingerprint analysis whether intentionally or unintentionally. These errors may stem from negligence, incompetence, cognitive and psychological phenomena and even a lack of accountability on the criminal justice system. Even though these vulnerabilities exist, fingerprint analysis is more reliable than eyewitness testimony. In forensic science, much of the data evaluated can be susceptible to human bias and nothing is ever 100% accurate. However, eyewitness misidentification contributes to 75% of wrongful convictions (Schwartz, 2017). It is not always possible for an eyewitness to accurately recollect events from a past crime and provide testimony that is completely reliable. There is an extraneous number of factors that can affect eyewitness memory. Many of these factors are both within and not within the control of the criminal justice system but highly affect a witness’s testimony. To conclude, both fingerprint analysis and eyewitness memory can be reliable sources but are never 100% dependable. This can be seen by all the