Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The ability to quickly and accurately match faces to photographs bears critically on many domains, from controlling purchase of age-restricted goods to law enforcement and airport security. Despite its pervasiveness and importance, research has shown that face matching is surprisingly error prone. The majority of face-matching research is conducted under idealized conditions (e.g., using photographs of individuals taken on the same day) and with equal proportions of match and mismatch trials, a rate that is likely not observed in everyday face matching. In four experiments, we presented observers with photographs of faces taken an average of 1.5 years apart and tested whether face-matching performance is affected by the prevalence of identity mismatches, comparing conditions of low (10 %) and high (50 %) mismatch prevalence. Like the low-prevalence effect in visual search, we observed inflated miss rates under low-prevalence conditions. This effect persisted when participants were allowed to correct their initial responses (Experiment 2), when they had to verify every decision with a certainty judgment (Experiment 3) and when they were permitted “second looks” at face pairs (Experiment 4). These results suggest that, under realistic viewing conditions, the low-prevalence effect in face matching is a large, persistent source of errors.
- Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Blackwell, K. (2010). Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378–386. doi:10.1037/a0021893
- Bindemann, M., & Sandford, A. (2011). Me, myself, and I: Different recognition rates for three photo-IDs of the same person. Perception, 40, 625–627. CrossRef
- Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, A. M., & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339–360.
- Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 305–327.
- Burton, A. M., Jenkins, R., Hancock, P. J. B., & White, D. (2005). Robust representations for face recognition: The power of averages. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 256–284. CrossRef
- Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286–291. CrossRef
- Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance. Psychological Science, 10, 243–248. CrossRef
- Clutterbuck, R., & Johnston, R. A. (2002). Exploring levels of face familiarity by using an indirect face-matching measure. Perception, 31, 985–994. CrossRef
- Davis, J. P., & Valentine, T. (2009). CCTV on trial: Matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 482–505. CrossRef
- Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Visual Cognition, 17, 195–211.
- Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V., & Burton, A. M. (2000). Recognition of unfamiliar faces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 330–337. CrossRef
- Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). The effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986–1004.
- Jenkins, R., White, D., Van Montfort, X., & Burton, A. M. (2011). Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition, 121, 313–323. CrossRef
- Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards, and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 211–222. CrossRef
- Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pozzulo, J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification errors. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 347–360. CrossRef
- Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.
- Megreya, A. M., & Bindemann, M. (2009). Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect. Perception, 38, 1831–1848. CrossRef
- Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Havard, C. (2011). Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks. Acta Psychologica, 137, 83–89. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003 CrossRef
- Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces aren’t faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876. CrossRef
- Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2007). Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity based dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175–1184. CrossRef
- Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2008). Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364–372.
- Özbek, M., & Bindemann, M. (2011). Exploring the time course of face matching: Temporal constraints impair unfamiliar face identification under temporally unconstrained viewing. Vision Research, 51, 2145–2155. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.009 CrossRef
- Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195–237. CrossRef
- Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 59–83. doi:10.1037/a0014086 CrossRef
- Recinto, R. (2012). ‘Missing’ woman unknowingly joins search for herself. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/missing-woman-unknowingly-joins-search-herself-165249353.html
- Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–17. doi:10.1167/8.15.15 CrossRef
- Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people in a real-world inter- action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 644–649. CrossRef
- Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553. doi:10.3758/APP.71.3.541 CrossRef
- Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295. CrossRef
- Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items are often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440. CrossRef
- Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623–638. CrossRef
- Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066 CrossRef
- Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Volume 76, Issue 5 , pp 1335-1349
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Unfamiliar face matching
- Low-prevalence effect
- Signal detection
- Industry Sectors