Publications and presentations on these issues:

  • Dror, I. E. (2011). A novel approach to minimize error in the medical domain: Cognitive neuroscientific insights into training.Medical Teacher, 33 (1), 34-38.
  • Dror, I.E. (2016). A Hierarchy of Expert Performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5 (2), 121-127. 
  • ​Dror, I. E., Morgan, R., Rando, C. & Nakhaeizadeh, S. (2017). The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: Two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62 (3), 832-833.
  • Dror, I. E. (2013). The ambition to be scientific: Human expert performance and objectivity. Science and Justice.
  • Dror, I.E.  (2006). The psychology of police performance and decision making. Police Professional, 58, 37-39.
  • Fraser-Mackenzie, P. & Dror, I. E. (2009). Selective information sampling: Cognitive coherence in evaluation of a novel item. Judgment and Decision Making, 4 (4), 307-316.
  • MacLean, C. & Dror, I.E. (2016). Psychology and cognitive bias. In A. Kesselheim & C. Robertson (Eds.), Blinding as a Solution to Bias (ch 1, pp 13-24). Elsevier.
  • Dror, I.E. & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors.  Journal of Forensic Identification, 56 (4), 600-616.
  • Dror, I.E.  (2006). Cognitive science serving security: Assuring useable and efficient biometric and technological solutions. Aviation Security International, 12 (3), 21-28. 
  • Dror, I. E. (2017). Human expert performance in forensic decision making: Seven Different Sources of Bias. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.  
  • Dror, I. E. (2013).  Cognitive technology. In the 2013 Yearbook of Science & Technology (pp. 80-82). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Dror, I. E. (2014). Practical Solutions to Cognitive and Human Factor Challenges in Forensic Science. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 4, 105-113.
  • Sung, M., Johnson, J.E. & Dror, I. E. (2009). Complexity as a guide to understanding decision bias: A contribution to the favorite-longshot bias debate. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22 (3), 318-337.
  • Fraser-Mackenzie, P.  & Dror, I. E. (2011). Dynamic reasoning and time pressure: Transition from analytical operations to experiential responses. Theory and Decision, 71 (2), 211-225. 
  • Dror, I. E. (2013).Patient safety. In J. A. Dent & R. M. Harden (Eds.), A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers (pp. 276-282). Elsevier. 
  • Dror, I. E., Wertheim, K., Fraser-Mackenzie, P., and Walajtys, J. (2012). The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57 (2), 343-352..
  • Dror, I. E. (2011). The paradox of human expertise: Why experts get it wrong. In N. Kapur (Ed.) The Paradoxical Brain (pp. 177-188). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dror, I. D. (2009). On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Science International, 191, 17-18.
  • Dror, I. E., Busemeyer, J.R., & Basola, B. (1999). Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models.  Memory and Cognition, 27 (4), 713-725.
  • Dror, I. E. (2007). Perception of risk and the decision to use force. Policing, 1, 265-272.
  • Dror, I.E. & Fraser-Mackenzie, P. (2008). Cognitive biases in human  perception, judgment, and decision making: Bridging theory and the real world. In K. Rossmo (Ed.) Criminal Investigative Failures (pp 53-67). Taylor & Francis Publishing.
  • Dror, I. E. & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51 (4), 204-208. 
  • Dror, I.E (2008) The role of perception: secure and deterrent in airports and airplanes. International Air Transport Association Annual Meeting. Seoul, South Korea.
  • Stibel, J. M., Dror, I. E., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2009). Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making:  The Collapsing Choice Theory. Theory and Decision, 66 (2), 149-179.
  • Dror, I. E. (2008). Expert Decision Making: Confirmation, contextual & other cognitive biases. Society of Expert Witnesses Conference on Trust and be Trusted. Swindon, UK.
  • Dror, I. E., Champod, C., Langenburg, G., Charlton, D., Hunt, H., & Rosenthal R. (2011). Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter-and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Science International, 208, 10-17.
  • Dror, I. E. (2008). Biased brains. Police Review, 116, 20-23.
  • Peron, A. E., Dror, I. E., & Bucks, R.  (2005). The number of choice alternatives in a decision making task: Cursed by, or spoilt for choice?  9th European Congress of Psychology. Granada, Spain.
  • Dror, I.E. and Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 900-903.
  • Dror, I.E. (2006). A holistic-cognitive approach for success in technology. Biometric Technology Today, 14(8), 7-8. 
  • Busey, T. & Dror, I.E. (2011). Special Abilities and Vulnerabilities in Forensic Expertise. In The Fingerprint Sourcebook (ch. 15, pp. 1-23). Washington DC: NIJ Press. 
  • Dror, I. E. (2007).  Perception and bias in risk judgments. Metropolitan Police Seminar on Bringing Science to the Streets. London.
  • Dror, I. E. (2009). How can Francis Bacon help forensic science? The four idols of human biases. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, 50, 93-110. 
  • Nakhaeizadeh, S., Morgan, R., Rando, C. & Dror, I. E. (in press). Cascading bias of initial exposure to information at the crime scene to the subsequent evaluation of skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 
  • Dror, I.E.  (2006). The psychology of police performance and decision making. Police Professional, 58, 37-39.
  • Dror, I. E. & Mnookin, J. (2010). The use of technology in human expert domains: Challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law, Probability and Risk, 9 (1), 47-67. 
  • Dror, I. E. (2012). Combating bias: The next step in fighting cognitive and psychological contamination. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 57 (1), 276-277.
  • Ashman, O., Dror, I. E., Houlette, M., & Levy, B. (2003).  Preserved risk-taking skills in old age. North American Journal of Psychology, 5 (3), 397-407.
  • Smith, W., Dror, I. E., & Mander, H. (2003). The effect of training specificity on performance in novel and related tasks. XX BPS Annual Cognitive Conference.
  • Dror, I. E., Langer, E.J., Houlette, M., & Ashworth, R.S.( 2001). Training and tasks demands that restrict and enhance performance. Psychonomic Abstracts, 6, 85.
  • Dror, I. E. (2011). Patient care and training: Minimizing errors in medical care that result in patient harm, Medical Teacher, 33 (5), 426-427.
  • Nakhaeizadeh, S., Dror, I. E. &  Morgan, R. (2014). Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: Visual assessments of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Science & Justice(pp. 353-363). , 54 (3), 208–214. 
  • Baden, D., Dror, I. E., and Warwick-Evans, L.A. (2000). The dynamics within and between decisions. Psychonomic Abstracts, 4, 81.
  • Rafaely, V., Dror, I. E., and Remington, B. (2000). Working memory capacity in old age affects decision-making performance. British Psychological Cognitive Section Annual Conference.
  • Dror, I. E., Charlton, D. (2006). Policing and forensics depend on cognition, psychology, and the human mind. Interpol Conference. Lyon, France.
  • Dror, I.E. (2005). Technology and human expertise: Some do’s and don’ts. Biometric Technology Today, 13 (9), 7-9.
  • Dror, I.E.  (2005). Identification, technology, and human experts: Where might it go wrong? European Commission Conference on Biometric Identification. Brussels, Belgium.
  • Dror, I.E.  (2005). Psychological and cognitive elements involved in biometric identification. Biometrics 2005, London.
  • Dror, I.E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications.    Forensic Science International, 156 (1), 74-78.
  • Rafaely, V., Dror, I. E., & Remington, R. E. (2006).  Information selectivity in decision making by young and older adults. International Journal of Psychology, 41 (2), 117-131.
  • Dror, I. E., Rafaely, V., & Busemyer, J. R. (1999). The dynamics of decision making as a function of recent outcomes and possible consequences. 6th European Congress of Psychology, 86.
  • Rafaely, V. & Dror, I. E. (1999). Avoidance payoff does not affect decision making by older adults. British Psychological Cognitive Section XVI Annual Conference. 
  • Rafaely, V., Dror, I. E., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1998). The susceptibility of young and old adults to positive and negative outcomes of recent decisions. Psychonomic Abstracts, 3, 41.
  • Dror, I.E., Peron, A., Hind, S., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799-809.

Decision Making


Decision making is an inseparable component of all human activities. The aim in our research, consultancy and training is to improve and enhance decisions (scientifically peer-reviewed articles, are listed and available below). We specialize in everyday decision making (such as consumer decision making) as well as experts, such as in medical healthcare, corporate, investigative and frontline policing, and forensic decision making.

In examining decision making, it is critical to understand both the processes by which decision alternatives are identified, evaluated, and managed, and the actual selecting mechanism that leads to the decision choice. The decision making process is dependent on a variety of factors, which may alter the decision choice. These include decision complexity, risk taking, time pressure, expertise, contextual influences & bias, use of technology, agechoices & judgments, motivation, stress, need for cognitive coherence, and so forth. These must be taken into account if one is going to construct training, CPD, procedures, best practices, and use technology to make effective and efficient decisions.

For example, how context can affect and bias our decisions. See, for example, recent  papers published in Science (e.g., 'Explore blind testing to prevent errors - get practical about fighting cognitive bias'), or in Nature and in The Economist (e.g., 'Ignorance is bliss') that focus on Dr Dror's work in expert forensic decision making, and procedures to minimize such biases, e.g.,  Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU)

On consumer decision making, marketing and branding 

Dror expert witness

One  must remember that decisions are not made in isolation. They do not only depend on 'objective' data-driven information. A variety of external influences play a major role in how information is perceived, processed, evaluated, and represented, which all have critical roles in the decision making process and its outcome. Decisions are further mediated by experience and expertise. These are of great interest to our CCI-HQ team and a focus of our current research, consultancy and training (see list of events). Below are two short videos on factors that impact decision making of experts as well as consumers:

Expert testimony

Another issue is how time pressure affects our decisions. As time pressure increases, our ability to examine and compare choice alternatives is challenged, and the decision making process is modified. These changes include ignoring some choice alternatives altogether, selectively examining information, change of threshold for responding, and more. We examine these effects, focusing on how they interact with risk taking and expertise in a number of domains (such as medical, financial, policing, and aviation decision making). 

​See BBC’s Newsnight interview with Dr. Dror on cognitive aspects in expert decision making, as well as PBS 'Frontline' TV (USA) "Can Unconscious Bias Undermine Fingerprint Analysis?"