Facial Recognition | Mugshot

Although face perception is usually studied from the standpoint of our amazing ability to differentiate a large number of faces, representations of face categories are also important. The process of categorizing individual faces has a number of implications both for general models of classification and for understanding face identification. The focus here is on the apparently paradoxical finding that participants are faster to classify faces they have difficulty recognizing. In the present case, this means that White participants classify Black or Asian faces faster than White faces (Levin, 1989; Valentine & Endo, 1992). In attempting to understand facilitated classification of cross-race faces (hereinafter referred to as the CR [cross-race] classification advantage), the present research considers explanations for the CR classification advantage as they relate to the basic structure of face categories, both in terms of discrimination between categories and in terms of their internal structure. Three explanations for the CR classification advantage are tested here. The first, stemming from Valentine's (1991) multidimensional space framework, places the advantage in

Abstract

The cross-race effect occurs when other-race faces are more difficult to recognize than same-race faces. This well-known phenomenon poses a problem when eyewitnesses to a crime are required to identify persons of another race. This problem was addressed via a face recognition test using racially ambiguous faces. Fifteen Hispanic (UTEP) students participated in a standard face recognition task. During the encoding phase they were presented with 24 racially ambiguous composite faces (12 "Hispanic" and 12 "black"). During the recognition phase they were presented with 24 "old" and 24 "new" composite faces and asked to identify which faces they had previously seen. Results showed a cross- race effect: participants were more accurate at recognizing same-race faces than other-race faces. These findings suggest that the cross-race effect can be attributed to a perceptual categorization of race...

ABSTRACT

Prior research has shown that within a racial category, people with more Afrocentric facial features are presumed more likely to have traits that are stereotypic of Black Americans compared with people with less Afrocentric features. The present study investigated whether this form of feature based stereotyping might be observed in criminal-sentencing decisions. Analysis of a random sample of inmate records showed that Black and White inmates, given equivalent criminal histories, received roughly equivalent sentences. However, within each race, inmates with more Afrocentric features received harsher sentences than those with less Afrocentric features. These results are consistent with laboratory findings, and they suggest that although racial stereotyping as a function of racial category has been successfully removed from sentencing decisions, racial stereotyping based on the facial features of the offender is a form of bias that is largely overlooked. Stereotypes are commonly defined as widely shared beliefs about the attributes of social groups (Fiske, 1998; Judd & Park, 1993). As such, they are assumed to influence...

When eyewitnesses examine a set of mugshots, the photos can be presented either individually or in groups. The present experiment investigated whether the selection of mugshots is influenced by group size. Participants watched a video of a mock theft, then viewed 180 mugshots either 3, 6, or 12 photos at a time. Selection of the target’s mugshot was not significantly affected by mugshot group size, but participants who viewed three mugshots at a time selected more fillers. In addition, group size had only a small effect on the amount of time taken to inspect mugshots, and participants exhibited a strong tendency to select no more than one mugshot from any single group. The practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. Witnesses to crimes are often asked to examine mugshots in an attempt to identify potential suspects. Dozens of studies have looked at a variety of factors involved in mugshot procedures, such as methods for filtering mugshots prior to viewing...

THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS

Archival Studies Show that Mistaken Identification is the Primary Cause of Erroneous Convictions. Several legal scholars, beginning with Borchard (1932), have studied the causes of mistaken identification in over 1,000 criminal cases (see also Brandon & Davies, 1973; Frank & Frank, 1957; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner & Sagarin, 1986). Huff (1987) readily concludes, on the basis of studying the 500 cases of erroneous conviction that he identified, that the single leading cause of mistaken conviction was erroneous eyewitness identification of the defendants. He states that eyewitness error was involved in nearly 60% of the cases he studied. Rattner’s (1988) analysis of 205 cases of wrongful conviction demonstrated that over 50% were attributable to mistaken identifications (also see Borchard, 1932). In a more recent study, the figure is as high as 79%. (Brandon Garrett, Judging Innocence, Columbia Law Review). This rate is all the more remarkable given that some commentators estimate that eyewitness identifications are prominent in only 5% of trials (Loh, 1981)...

Abstract

In two experiments we examined the ability of human observers to recognize faces from novel viewpoints. Previous work has indicated that there are marked declines in recognition performance when observers learn a particular view of a face and are asked to recognize the face from a novel viewpoint. We replicate these ndings and extend them in several ways. First, we replicate the well-known 3/4 view advantage for recognition and extend it to show that this advantage is stronger than would be expected simply due to the 3/4 view being the center of the learned views. In the second experiment, we found little evidence for advantageous transfer to a symmetric view of the other side of the face, in all cases, observers were much better at recognizing a face from the side learned. Third, we extended past results to explore the consistency of face recognizability for individual faces across dierent views and view transfer conditions. We found only a modest relationship between the...

Previous studies have shown that people recognize faces of their own race more accurately than they recognize faces of other races, a finding that has become known as the cross-race effect, or the own-race bias (Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; see Meissner & Brigham, 2001, for a meta analytic review). A number of theoretical explanations for this effect have been proposed (see Sporer, 2001, for a review). One of the most widely accepted explanations for this effect is that poorer recognition of other-race faces may be rooted in the observer’s perceptual learning and the amount of contact that he or she has had with people of other races. An alternative explanation, proposed by Levin (1996) and MacLin and Malpass (2001), suggests that racial categorization occurs automatically and early in the perceptual encounter with faces of another race, taking attention away from individuating characteristics of the face. An own-race recognition bias typically manifests as a disordinal (full crossover) interaction between race of observer and race of face, so that...