The Effect of Feedback on Face‐Matching Accuracy

Abstract

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.uk If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Alenezi, Hamood and Bindemann, Markus (2013) Citation for published version AbstractIn face matching, observers have to decide if two photographs depict the same person or different people. This is a remarkably difficult task so the current study investigated whether it can be improved when observers receive feedback for their performance. In five experiments, observersÕ initial matching performance was recorded before feedback for their accuracy was administered across three blocks. Improvements were then assessed with faces that had been seen previously with or without feedback and with completely new, previously unseen faces. In all experiments, feedback failed to improve face-matching accuracy. However, trial-by-trial feedback helped to maintain accuracy at baseline level after feedback was withdrawn again, even with new faces (Experiments 1 to 3). By contrast, when no feedback was given throughout the experiment (Experiments 1 to 3) or when outcome feedback was administered at the end of blocks (Experiments 4 and 5), a continuous decline in matching accuracy was found, whereby observers found it increasingly difficult to tell different facial identities apart. A sixth experiment showed that this decline in accuracy continues throughout when the matching task is prolonged substantially. Together, these findings indicate that observers find it increasingly difficult to differentiate faces in matching tasks over time, but trial-by-trial feedback can help to maintain accuracy. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.3

Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out‐perform individuals and provide a route to training

“…The distinction between ‘high performers’ and ‘low performers’ in a pair led to the suggestion that this technique could be used as training for improving individual unfamiliar face matching accuracy. Options for training have been explored before, using different techniques, with limited success (Alenezi & Bindemann, ; McIntyre et al ., ; Moore & Johnston, ; White, Burton, et al ., ). In experiments 2 and 3a, we investigate training effects of pairs by having participants perform a final face matching block on their own.…”

“…Studies examining the use of feedback training for face matching have produced mixed results. White, Kemp, Jenkins, and Burton () showed a benefit for participants trained with trial‐by‐trial feedback, while Alenezi and Bindemann () demonstrated only that this technique halted an overall decline in performance across a series of trials. Attempts have been made to improve unfamiliar face matching in other ways, such as through increased motivation (Moore & Johnston, ), facial caricaturing (McIntyre, Hancock, Kittler, & Langton, ) and adding multiple images to photo‐ID (White, Burton, Jenkins, & Kemp, ), all with limited success.…”

The Kent Face Matching Test

“…In this experiment, observers completed the longer version of the KFMT, comprising 200 match trials and 20 mismatch trials. Current research shows that when matching optimized GFMT faces for a prolonged period, observers develop a response bias to erroneously classify pairs as identity matches (Alenezi & Bindemann, ; Alenezi, Bindemann, Fysh, & Johnston, ; Bindemann et al ., ). If the KFMT produces behavioural effects comparable to the GFMT, then such a response bias should also be found here, strengthening the results of Experiment 1.…”

“…The GFMT has already featured in over 30 face‐matching studies to investigate how performance is impacted by factors such as time pressure (Bindemann, Fysh, Cross, & Watts, ), mismatch prevalence (Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Blackwell, ), sleep deprivation (Beattie, Walsh, McLaren, Biello, & White, ), image quality (Bindemann, Attard, Leach, & Johnston, ; Strathie & McNeill, ), and performance‐related feedback (Alenezi & Bindemann, ; White, Kemp, Jenkins, & Burton, ). Moreover, this task has been administered not only to students, but also to non‐students (Bobak, Dowsett, & Bate, ; White, Rivolta, Burton, Al‐Janabi, & Palermo, ), forensic experts (White, Phillips, Hahn, Hill, & O'Toole, ), police officers (Robertson, Noyes, Dowsett, Jenkins, & Burton, ), and passport officers (White, Kemp, Jenkins, Matheson, & Burton, ).…”

The Headscarf Effect Revisited: Further Evidence for a Culture-Based Internal Face Processing Advantage

“…Their astonishment usually reflects the fact that faces of a similar age, race, and sex tend to look highly alike, requiring perceivers to note rather fine-grained perceptual variations between them (Bruce & Humphreys, 1994). Although this process frequently unfolds accurately, it can be compromised upon encountering unfamiliar others (Alenezi & Bindemann, 2013;Bindemann, Avetisyn, & Rakow, 2012). Such difficulties can become particularly worrisome in contexts that call for the reliable identification of a specific individual, such as border control checks or police line-ups (Burton & Jenkins, 2011).…”