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

Abstract

Matching unfamiliar faces is known to be difficult. Here, we ask whether performance can be improved by asking viewers to work in pairs, a manipulation known to increase accuracy for low-level visual discrimination tasks. Across four experiments we consistently find that face matching accuracy is higher for pairs of viewers than for individuals. This 'pairs advantage' is generally driven by adopting the response of the higher scoring partner. However, when the task becomes difficult, both partners' performance is improved by working in a pair. In two experiments, we find evidence that working in a pair can lead to subsequent improvements in individual performance, specifically for viewers whose accuracy is initially low. The pairs' technique therefore offers the opportunity for substantial improvements in face matching performance, along with an added training benefit.

The Kent Face Matching Test

“…The aim of this study was to facilitate further research with the KFMT to understand face-matching performance in the context of passport control. We suggest that this makes the KFMT a valuable research resource to investigate factors that cannot be explored fully with the optimized identification conditions that are provided by the GFMT (see, e.g., Bindemann et al, 2016;Dowsett & Burton, 2015). The KFMT is freely available for facematching research (https://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/research/cognitive/kentface match.html).…”

“…For example, one study found that working in pairs improved face‐matching accuracy for low‐performing, but not high‐performing observers when comparing faces from the GFMT. However, when a more challenging stimulus set was employed, an advantage for working in pairs was also found in high‐performing observers (Dowsett & Burton, ). These findings suggest that the optimized conditions provided by the GFMT might obscure some effects that are better identified under more challenging conditions.…”

Imposter identification in low prevalence environments

“…Future research should also find ways to sustainably improve face-matching performance (see Dowsett & Burton, 2015;Kemp, Caon, Howard, & Brooks, 2016;Menon, White, & Kemp, 2015) or improve personnel selection to include super recognizers (see Bobak, Dowsett, & Bate, 2016;Bobak, Hancock, & Bate, 2016;White et al, 2014), or find ways to train screeners to adopt better criterion during low prevalence situations (see Wolfe et al, 2007). With a presumably low prevalence of imposters traversing international ports of entry and airports, it is critical for researchers to provide evidence-based strategies for mitigating the apparent shift in criterion that likely impacts all individuals, and the overconfidence in the performance that particularly impacts people from unfamiliar races and ethnicities.…”

Unfamiliar Face Matching With Frontal and Profile Views

“…All participants in Experiments 1 and 2 provided written informed consent and were verbally debriefed at the end of the experiment. Sample size was based on past research using a face matching paradigm (Dowsett & Burton, 2015;Estudillo & Bindemann, 2014), although we continued to run participants until the end of a pre-determined data collection run. Trent University's ethics committee approved all experiments presented here, which were carried out in accordance with the provisions of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.…”

“…Although research into this question is ongoing, few solutions have been found so far. In terms of the process, we know that working together in pairs (Dowsett & Burton, 2015) or aggregating the responses of groups of individuals (White, Burton, Kemp, & Jenkins, 2013) can increase accuracy. Regarding the materials, evidence suggests that using computer-generated averages or arrays of instances can improve performance over comparison with a single image (White, Burton, Jenkins, & Kemp, 2014).…”