Literature DB >> 25988915

Viewers base estimates of face matching accuracy on their own familiarity: Explaining the photo-ID paradox.

Kay L Ritchie1, Finlay G Smith2, Rob Jenkins3, Markus Bindemann4, David White5, A Mike Burton6.   

Abstract

Matching two different images of a face is a very easy task for familiar viewers, but much harder for unfamiliar viewers. Despite this, use of photo-ID is widespread, and people appear not to know how unreliable it is. We present a series of experiments investigating bias both when performing a matching task and when predicting other people's performance. Participants saw pairs of faces and were asked to make a same/different judgement, after which they were asked to predict how well other people, unfamiliar with these faces, would perform. In four experiments we show different groups of participants familiar and unfamiliar faces, manipulating this in different ways: celebrities in experiments 1-3 and personally familiar faces in experiment 4. The results consistently show that people match images of familiar faces more accurately than unfamiliar faces. However, people also reliably predict that the faces they themselves know will be more accurately matched by different viewers. This bias is discussed in the context of current theoretical debates about face recognition, and we suggest that it may underlie the continued use of photo-ID, despite the availability of evidence about its unreliability.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Face matching; Face processing; Familiarity; Perceptual prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25988915     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  10 in total

1.  The pairs training effect in unfamiliar face matching.

Authors:  Kay L Ritchie; Tessa R Flack; Elizabeth A Fuller; Charlotte Cartledge; Robin S S Kramer
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 1.695

2.  A systematic survey of face stimuli used in psychological research 2000-2020.

Authors:  Amy Dawel; Elizabeth J Miller; Annabel Horsburgh; Patrice Ford
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2021-11-03

3.  Forming impressions of facial attractiveness is mandatory.

Authors:  Kay L Ritchie; Romina Palermo; Gillian Rhodes
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Effects of time pressure and time passage on face-matching accuracy.

Authors:  Matthew C Fysh; Markus Bindemann
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 2.963

5.  Face familiarity promotes stable identity recognition: exploring face perception using serial dependence.

Authors:  Rebecca Kok; Jessica Taubert; Erik Van der Burg; Gillian Rhodes; David Alais
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.963

6.  Do professional facial image comparison training courses work?

Authors:  Alice Towler; Richard I Kemp; A Mike Burton; James D Dunn; Tanya Wayne; Reuben Moreton; David White
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Person identification from aerial footage by a remote-controlled drone.

Authors:  Markus Bindemann; Matthew C Fysh; Sophie S K Sage; Kristina Douglas; Hannah M Tummon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Individual differences in face identity processing.

Authors:  Jennifer M McCaffery; David J Robertson; Andrew W Young; A Mike Burton
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-06-27

9.  What happens to our representation of identity as familiar faces age? Evidence from priming and identity aftereffects.

Authors:  Sarah Laurence; Kristen A Baker; Valentina M Proietti; Catherine J Mondloch
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2022-03-11

10.  Forgetting faces over a week: investigating self-reported face recognition ability and personality.

Authors:  Robin S S Kramer
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.984

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.