Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification.

Abstract

It can be remarkably difficult to determine whether two photographs of unfamiliar faces depict the same person or two different people. This fallibility is well established in the face perception and eyewitness domain, but most of this research has focused on the "average" observer by measuring mean performance across groups of participants. This study deviated from this convention to provide a detailed description of individual differences and observer consistency in unfamiliar face identification by assessing performance repeatedly, across a 3-day (Experiment 1) and a 5-day period (Experiment 2). Both experiments reveal considerable variation between but also within observers. This variation is such that the same observers frequently made different identification decisions to the same faces on different days (Experiment 1). And when new faces were shown on each day, observers that produced perfect accuracy on one day made many misidentifications on another (Experiment 2). However, a few individuals also performed with consistent high accuracy in these tests. These findings suggest that accuracy and consistency are separable indices of face-matching ability, and both measures are necessary to provide a precise index of a person's face processing skill. We discuss whether these measures could provide the basis for a selection tool for occupations that depend on accurate person identification.

The Effect of Image Pixelation on Unfamiliar‐Face Matching

“…By contrast, the 8 pixel condition here reduced accuracy to close-to-chance, despite the fact that the matching paradigm allows for an immediate side-by-side comparison of two faces. These findings therefore reiterate that face matching is difficult (e.g., Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012;Burton et al, 2010;Megreya & Burton, 2006) and demonstrate that this task becomes even more error-prone when a high-resolution face has to be matched to a pixelated image. Moreover, the current results indicate that extrapolating previous findings with familiar faces to unfamiliar face matching would lead to overly optimistic expectations of observers' ability to perform this task.…”

“…This condition is derived directly from previous studies in this field and provides a baseline for best-possible performance (see, e.g., Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012;Burton et al, 2010;Megreya, Bindemann, & Harvard, 2011). In the three remaining conditions, observers were presented with pairs of faces comprising a highresolution photograph and a pixelated image.…”

“…An understanding of these matching errors has informed psychological theories of face processing (e.g., Burton, Jenkins, Hancock, & White, 2005;Burton, Jenkins, & Schweinberger, 2011; and forensic identification (Jenkins & Burton, 2008;Megreya & Burton, 2008), and also has led to developments that might reduce errors of person identification in practical settings (see, e.g., Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow;Bindemann, Brown, Koyas, & Russ, 2012;Burton et al, 2010; White, Kemp, Jenkins, & Burton, in press). Consequently, the study of face matching is now firmly established as a research topic of theoretical and applied importance.…”

“…Despite its applied usage, face matching is an error-prone task. Under seemingly optimized laboratory conditions, in which pairs of to-be-matched faces are depicted in the same lighting, expression and view, identification errors are typically made 10% to 30% of the time (see, e.g., Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Blackwell, 2010;Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012;Burton, White & McNeill, 2010;Megreya, Bindemann, & Harvard, 2011;Megreya, White, & Burton, 2011). Accuracy declines even further under different task demands, for example, when a target has to be compared to two , five (Bindemann, Sandford, Gillatt, Avetisyan, & Megreya, 2012;Megreya, Bindemann, Havard, & Burton, 2013) or ten concurrent faces (e.g., Bruce et al, 1999;Megreya & Burton, 2006).…”

Matching Face Images Taken on the Same Day or Months Apart: the Limitations of Photo ID

“…These poor levels of performance persist when viewers are asked to match a photo to a live person, as in real ID-check settings (Davis & Valentine, 2009;Kemp, Towell & Pike, 1997;Megreya & Burton, 2008). Evidence seems to indicate that face-matching ability is quite variable among different observers (Bindemann, Brown, Koyas, & Russ, 2012;Burton et al, 2010;Megreya & Bindemann, in press;Megreya & Burton, 2006b), but fairly consistent within participants (Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012).…”