Witnesses' Blindness for their Own Facial Recognition Decisions: A Field Study

Abstract

In a field study, we examined choice blindness for eyewitnesses' facial recognition decisions. Seventy-one pedestrians were engaged in a conversation by two experimenters who pretended to be tourists in the center of a European city. After a short interval, pedestrians were asked to identify the two experimenters from separate simultaneous six-person photo lineups. Following each of the two forced-choice recognition decisions, they were confronted with their selection and asked to motivate their decision. However, for one of the recognition decisions, the chosen lineup member was exchanged with a previously unidentified member. Blindness for this identity manipulation occurred at the rate of 40.8%. Furthermore, the detection rate varied as a function of similarity (high vs. low) between the original choice and the manipulated outcome. Finally, choice manipulations undermined the confidence-accuracy relation for detectors to a greater degree than for blind participants. Stimulus ambiguity is discussed as a moderator of choice blindness.

Self-Relevance Does Not Moderate Choice Blindness in Adolescents and Children

“…The results for similarity concur with earlier findings [1], [26]. Others, however, reported an effect of similarity for a limited selection of stimuli [14] or for concurrent (but not retrospective) detection [16].…”

Memory impairment is not sufficient for choice blindness to occur

“…This supports the idea that the memory trace for the original rating was still accessible and could be retrieved at will. These findings support earlier indications that blindness phenomena cannot be reduced to weak memory or forgetting (Sagana et al, 2013). Over and above when participants did change their ratings (53.4% of trials), the shift in the answers from the original sympathy ratings to the subsequently remembered sympathy estimates was independent of whether a manipulation was detected or not.…”

“…Indirect evidence for such link comes from a field study (Sagana et al, 2013) that examined choice blindness for eyewitnesses’ facial recognition decisions. Sagana et al (2013) reported that participants who made an accurate lineup decision were more likely to notice a covertly performed manipulation at the end of the experiment (i.e., retrospectively ) than participants who made an erroneous recognition decision. In other words, participants’ memory, as indicated by recognition accuracy, was associated with higher detection rates.…”

“…This suggests that the accuracy of a recognition decision and the capacity to detect a manipulation are not always associated. Thus, Sagana et al (2013) concluded that blindness phenomena cannot be fully attributed to memory decay. The observation that blindness phenomena can be obtained even when the manipulated outcome is presented minutes after the original choice (Johansson et al, 2005; Hall et al, 2012) supports this position.…”

An Examination of the Causes and Solutions to Eyewitness Error

“…Studies of jurors and potential jurors in several different countries indicate that they have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors, though the extent of their knowledge varies, depending on the nature of the questions asked [(11) (U.S.); (12) (U.S.); (13) (Canada); (14) (Scotland); (15) (Norway); (16) (Australia); (17) (UK); (18) (U.S.)]. Furthermore, in assessing accuracy, jurors generally rely on factors that are poor predictors of accuracy, such as eyewitness confidence at trial, memory for minor details, and consistency of eyewitness testimony.…”