The Impact of Disguise on the Identification of Familiar Faces
Tóm tắt
Two studies examined the impact of disguise on recognizing familiar faces. Participants viewed the faces of male celebrities and unfamiliar male faces seen disguised or undisguised. Familiar face recognition accuracy decreased significantly with an increase in the degree of disguise and concealment of facial features. In study 1, participants in the high disguise group (n = 75) viewed faces wearing dark, tight-fitting pantyhose that distorted facial features. Participants in the low disguise group (n = 78) viewed faces wearing a pantyhose more opaque and looser fitting, providing less concealment of the face. Recognition accuracy in the high disguise group was significantly lower (.27) than the low disguise group (.51). In study 2, participants (N = 252) viewed celebrity and unfamiliar faces wearing one of three disguises: (1) a hat, glasses, and fake mustache, (2) a ski mask, or (3) a pantyhose from the high disguise group in study 1. Recognition accuracy in the ski mask group was significantly lower (.21) than the hat, glasses, and fake mustache group (.44) and the high disguise pantyhose group (.29). When presented with disguised and undisguised control faces that were unfamiliar, participants in both studies were accurate at identifying them as unfamiliar. Lastly, the impact of disguise on familiar face recognition decreased significantly in both studies when controlled for, as was done above, whether a participant could identify a celebrity face when seen undisguised.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bahrick HP, Bahrick PO, Wittlinger RP (1975) Fifty years of memory for names and faces: a cross-sectional approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 104(1):54–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.1.54
Bornstein BH, Deffenbacher KA, Penrod SD, McGorty EK (2012) Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychol Crime Law 18(5):473–490
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Erlbaum
Greene E, Robinson S (1993) Who was that masked man? Demonstrative evidence in an eyewitness case. Trial Diplomacy Journal 16:249–252
Krix A, Sauerland M, Schreuder M (2017) Masking the identities of celebrities and personally familiar individuals: effects on visual and auditory recognition performance. Perception 46(10):1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617710621
Mansour JK, Beaudry J, Mertand M, Kalmet N, Melsom E, Lindsay R (2012) Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law Hum Behav 36(6):513–526
Moniz E, Righi G, Peissig JJ, Tarr MJ (2010) The Clark Kent effect: What is the role of familiarity and eyeglasses in recognizing disguised faces? J Vis 10(7):615–615
Noyes E, Jenkins R (2019) Deliberate disguise in face identification. J Exp Psychol Appl 25(2):280–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000213
Pezdek K, Stolzenberg S (2014) Are individual’s familiarity judgments diagnostic of prior contact? Psychol Crime Law 20(4):302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.772181
Pozzulo J, Pica E, Sheahan C (2019) Familiarity and conviction in the criminal justice system: definitions, theory, and eyewitness research. Oxford University Press
Shapiro PN, Penrod S (1986) Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychol Bull 100(2):139–156
Sheahan CL, Pozzulo JD, Reed J, Pica E (2020) The role of familiarity with the defendant, type of descriptor discrepancy, and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ perception of eyewitness testimony. J Police Crim Psychol 33:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2
Vallano JP, Slapinski KA, Steele LJ, Briggs AP, Pozzulo JD (2019) Familiar eyewitness identifications: the current state of affairs. Psychol Public Policy Law 25(3):128–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000204