These two are different. Yes, they're the same: Choice blindness for facial identity

M. Sauerland, A. Sagana, K. Siegmann, D. Heiligers, H. Merckelbach, R. Jenkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

We examined the manipulability of face identity judgements by combining a sorting task for unfamiliar faces with a standard test of choice blindness. In Experiment 1, 50 participants completed a sorting task and then justified grouping specific pairs of photos together or apart. On manipulated trials, the presented pairings were different from those the participants had actually produced. Detection rates for these identity manipulations were strikingly low ( approximately 21%). Moreover, participants readily provided justifications for identity decisions that they had not made, typically referring to specific facial features. Experiment 2 was conducted along similar lines and confirmed that lower task difficulty and higher confidence in one's face identity judgements increase detection rates. We conclude that observers can easily be led to believe that they made identity judgements they did not make. As well as underscoring the fragility of unfamiliar face matching, our findings have implications for identity judgements in legal settings.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-104
Number of pages12
JournalConsciousness and Cognition
Volume40
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2016

Keywords

  • Choice blindness
  • Face recognition
  • Identification
  • Eyewitness
  • Confabulation
  • RECOGNITION
  • FACES
  • FAMILIARITY
  • SCALE

Cite this

@article{748dff5491b34f89a0fcc4badbb68fe6,
title = "These two are different. Yes, they're the same: Choice blindness for facial identity",
abstract = "We examined the manipulability of face identity judgements by combining a sorting task for unfamiliar faces with a standard test of choice blindness. In Experiment 1, 50 participants completed a sorting task and then justified grouping specific pairs of photos together or apart. On manipulated trials, the presented pairings were different from those the participants had actually produced. Detection rates for these identity manipulations were strikingly low ( approximately 21{\%}). Moreover, participants readily provided justifications for identity decisions that they had not made, typically referring to specific facial features. Experiment 2 was conducted along similar lines and confirmed that lower task difficulty and higher confidence in one's face identity judgements increase detection rates. We conclude that observers can easily be led to believe that they made identity judgements they did not make. As well as underscoring the fragility of unfamiliar face matching, our findings have implications for identity judgements in legal settings.",
keywords = "Choice blindness, Face recognition, Identification, Eyewitness, Confabulation, RECOGNITION, FACES, FAMILIARITY, SCALE",
author = "M. Sauerland and A. Sagana and K. Siegmann and D. Heiligers and H. Merckelbach and R. Jenkins",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.003",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "93--104",
journal = "Consciousness and Cognition",
issn = "1053-8100",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

These two are different. Yes, they're the same: Choice blindness for facial identity. / Sauerland, M.; Sagana, A.; Siegmann, K.; Heiligers, D.; Merckelbach, H.; Jenkins, R.

In: Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 40, 02.2016, p. 93-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - These two are different. Yes, they're the same: Choice blindness for facial identity

AU - Sauerland, M.

AU - Sagana, A.

AU - Siegmann, K.

AU - Heiligers, D.

AU - Merckelbach, H.

AU - Jenkins, R.

PY - 2016/2

Y1 - 2016/2

N2 - We examined the manipulability of face identity judgements by combining a sorting task for unfamiliar faces with a standard test of choice blindness. In Experiment 1, 50 participants completed a sorting task and then justified grouping specific pairs of photos together or apart. On manipulated trials, the presented pairings were different from those the participants had actually produced. Detection rates for these identity manipulations were strikingly low ( approximately 21%). Moreover, participants readily provided justifications for identity decisions that they had not made, typically referring to specific facial features. Experiment 2 was conducted along similar lines and confirmed that lower task difficulty and higher confidence in one's face identity judgements increase detection rates. We conclude that observers can easily be led to believe that they made identity judgements they did not make. As well as underscoring the fragility of unfamiliar face matching, our findings have implications for identity judgements in legal settings.

AB - We examined the manipulability of face identity judgements by combining a sorting task for unfamiliar faces with a standard test of choice blindness. In Experiment 1, 50 participants completed a sorting task and then justified grouping specific pairs of photos together or apart. On manipulated trials, the presented pairings were different from those the participants had actually produced. Detection rates for these identity manipulations were strikingly low ( approximately 21%). Moreover, participants readily provided justifications for identity decisions that they had not made, typically referring to specific facial features. Experiment 2 was conducted along similar lines and confirmed that lower task difficulty and higher confidence in one's face identity judgements increase detection rates. We conclude that observers can easily be led to believe that they made identity judgements they did not make. As well as underscoring the fragility of unfamiliar face matching, our findings have implications for identity judgements in legal settings.

KW - Choice blindness

KW - Face recognition

KW - Identification

KW - Eyewitness

KW - Confabulation

KW - RECOGNITION

KW - FACES

KW - FAMILIARITY

KW - SCALE

U2 - 10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.003

DO - 10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.003

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 93

EP - 104

JO - Consciousness and Cognition

JF - Consciousness and Cognition

SN - 1053-8100

ER -