Participants' free‐hand drawings of a target face can influence recognition accuracy and the confidence–accuracy correlation

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of participants' free-hand drawings on recognition accuracy and confidence for targets presented in a standard recognition paradigm and a lineup identification task. For both experiments, drawing a target influenced recognition accuracy and the confidence-accuracy correlation. In Experiment 1, the confidence-accuracy correlation was higher for participants completing a drawing than controls. Experiment 2 examined the drawings in relation to participants' decision to choose from the lineups. Once choosing was statistically controlled, the confidence-accuracy correlation for drawers was not higher than controls. These results suggest that the drawing influences the confidence-accuracy correlation by decreasing the likelighood of erroneously rejecting a target-present lineup.

Effects of verbalization on lineup face recognition in an interpolated inspection paradigm

“…Column 3 of Table 1 shows that more description (100%) than no-description (75%) subjects correctly judged that the Comparison Face was not the same as the Study Face (X 2 (1) ¼ 3.66, p < 0.06). The positive effect of description on the inspection task is consistent with previous studies in which description non-significantly improved recognition responses to individually presented faces (Mauldin & Laughery, 1981;McClure & Shaw, 2002).…”

“…Likewise, it is unclear how description might affect inspection itself. There are at least three published studies in which the presence or absence of some sort of description task was systematically varied prior to subjects inspecting individually presented faces (Mauldin & Laughery, 1981;McClure & Shaw, 2002;Memon & Bartlett, 2002). In those studies, description and no-description subjects did not differ significantly on inspection accuracy.…”

Advances in Facial Composite Technology, Utilizing Holistic Construction, Do Not Lead to an Increase in Eyewitness Misidentifications Compared to Older Feature-Based Systems

“…This suggests that if witnesses were allowed to construct the composite in a more holistic manner, the impairment would have been reduced. In contrast, however, the notion that featural construction impairs memory for the target face is contradicted by findings that composites constructed in a featural manner can also improve subsequent face recognition (E-FIT; Davis et al, 2014; Identi-Kit; Mauldin and Laughery, 1981; free-hand drawing; McClure and Shaw, 2002).…”

The Effect of Facial Composite Construction on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy in an Ecologically Valid Paradigm

“…The effect of active composite construction has been investigated in a range of studies that have also yielded mixed results. Some studies have suggested that constructing a composite benefits memory (Davis, Gibson, & Solomon, 2014; Mauldin & Laughery, 1981; McClure & Shaw, 2002; Meissner & Brigham, 2001), others have found that it harms memory (Comish, 1987; Kempen & Tredoux, 2012; Topp-Manriquez, McQuiston, & Malpass, 2016; Wells et al, 2005), and yet others have reported no significant effects (Davies, Ellis, & Shepherd, 1978; Davis, Thorniley, Gibson, & Solomon, 2016; Yu & Geiselman, 1993). As was mentioned earlier, the study conducted by Wells et al (2005) received considerable publicity and attention, so in light of the impact of their results, we discuss Wells et al’s study in more detail below.…”

“…The experiments conducted to date on facial composite construction have involved conditions that are far removed from conditions in most real-world criminal investigations. For example, none involved live events; they all involved viewing either pictures of faces (e.g., Davies et al, 1978; McClure & Shaw, 2002; Wells et al, 2005, Experiment 1) or a videotaped event (e.g., Davis et al, 2014; Davis et al, 2016; Wells et al, 2005, Experiment 2; Yu & Geiselman, 1993). Importantly, Ihlebæk, Løve, Eilertsen, and Magnussen (2003) reported that witnesses who viewed an event on video provided more complete and more accurate eyewitness statements than witnesses who experienced the same event live, suggesting that laboratory experiments may overestimate eyewitness memory performance in the real world.…”