We are testing a new system for linking grants to scientists.
The funding information displayed below comes from the
NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools and the
NSF Award Database.
The grant data on this page is limited to grants awarded in the United States and is thus partial. It can nonetheless be used to understand how funding patterns influence mentorship networks and vice-versa, which has deep implications on how research is done.
You can help! If you notice any innacuracies, please
sign in and mark grants as correct or incorrect matches.
Sign in to see low-probability grants and correct any errors in linkage between grants and researchers.
High-probability grants
According to our matching algorithm, Jeff Kukucka is the likely recipient of the following grants.
Years |
Recipients |
Code |
Title / Keywords |
Matching score |
2013 — 2014 |
Kassin, Saul Kukucka, Jeff |
N/AActivity Code Description: No activity code was retrieved: click on the grant title for more information |
Doctoral Dissertation Research: An Investigation of Factors That Create and Mitigate Confirmation Bias in Judgments of Forensic Evidence @ Cuny John Jay College of Criminal Justice
The forensic sciences have recently been criticized, most notably by the National Academy of Sciences, due to the alarming frequency of forensic science errors in known DNA exoneration cases. Empirical data now suggests that confirmation bias -- i.e., the tendency to interpret new evidence in ways that validate one's pre-existing beliefs -- can produce such errors. That is to say, forensic examiners' objectivity and accuracy can be undermined by their a priori beliefs regarding a suspect's guilt or innocence. The current studies will enhance our knowledge of factors that exacerbate and mitigate confirmation biases in judgments of forensic evidence, in hopes of guiding reforms to minimize the risk of costly miscarriages of justice.
In each study, mock forensic examiners will assist in a simulated criminal investigation by comparing handwriting samples from the perpetrator and suspect. Study 1 will test whether mock examiners who are led to believe that the suspect is guilty will consequently perceive exculpatory handwriting evidence as more incriminating than those who are not. In addition, Study 1 will explore whether this bias is exacerbated when the handwriting samples are highly similar and/or examiners receive simulated negative feedback from police investigators.
Study 2 will provide the first empirical test of "evidence lineups," a procedural reform often proposed as a means of combating bias, but whose efficacy remains unknown. Having been led to expect the suspect's guilt, innocence, or neither, some examiners will receive one handwriting sample each from the perpetrator and suspect -- a method which some claim is inherently suggestive of guilt. The remaining examiners will utilize an "evidence lineup," which forces them to compare three different suspect samples against the perpetrator's sample and indicate which, if any, matches it. Study 2 will thus provide the first empirical data to inform the longstanding debate over the potential value of evidence lineups.
|
0.907 |