Whether forensic disciplines have established foundational validity—sufficient empirical evidence that a method reliably produces a predictable level of performance—has become a question of growing interest among scientists and legal professionals. This paper evaluates the foundational validity of two sources of forensic evidence relied upon in criminal cases: eyewitness identification decisions and latent fingerprint examiners’ conclusions. Importantly, establishing foundational validity and estimating accuracy are conceptually and functionally different. Though eyewitnesses can often be mistaken, identification procedures recommended by researchers are grounded in decades of programmatic research that justifies the use of methods that improve the reliability of eyewitness decisions. In contrast, latent print research suggests that expert examiners can be very accurate, but foundational validity in this field is limited by an overreliance on a handful of black-box studies, the dismissal of smaller-scale, yet high-quality, research, and a tendency to treat foundational validity as a fixed destination rather than a continuum. Critically, the lack of a standardized method means that any estimates of examiner performance are not tied to any specific approach to latent print examination. Despite promising early work, until the field adopts and tests well-defined procedures, foundational validity in latent print examination will remain a goal still to be achieved.

Do people in different societies experience morality differently in everyday life? Using experience sampling methods, we investigate everyday moral experiences in a sample from 20 countries across 6 continents, thereby replicating and extending a large-scale study originally conducted in the United States and Canada. We aim to replicate key findings about the kinds of moral experiences people have, the relationship between such experiences and religious or political affiliation, how such experiences affect momentary feelings, and how such experiences influence moral behavior. An international sample enables us to assess the generalizability of these findings across different socio-cultural contexts.

Cultural logic is a set of cultural scripts and patterns organized around a central theme. The cultural logics of dignity, honor, and face describe different ways of evaluating a person’s worth and maintaining cooperation. These cultural logics vary in prevalence across cultures. In this study, we collaboratively develop and validate a measure capturing these cultural logics, which will allow us to map world cultures based on the prevalence of these logics. We will further explore the interrelations of dignity, honor, and face with prosocial behavior, values, moral beliefs, and religiosity as well as examine the generalizability of these relationships across cultures. Finally, we will explore historical antecedents (e.g., resource scarcity) and current correlates (e.g., inequality) of the country-level prevalence of these cultural logics. This study will generate a new dataset of country scores for dignity, honor, and face that will be available for future comparative research. It will also provide theoretical insights for researchers and practitioners interested in cooperation and social behavior within and between cultures.