Cited by 57

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification.

Bindemann, Markus, Avetisyan, Meri, Rakow, Tim·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

It can be remarkably difficult to determine whether two photographs of unfamiliar faces depict the same person or two different people. This fallibility is well established in the face perception and eyewitness domain, but most of this research has focused on the "average" observer by measuring mean performance across groups of participants. This study deviated from this convention to provide a detailed description of individual differences and observer consistency in unfamiliar face identification by assessing performance repeatedly, across a 3-day (Experiment 1) and a 5-day period (Experiment 2). Both experiments reveal considerable variation between but also within observers. This variation is such that the same observers frequently made different identification decisions to the same faces on different days (Experiment 1). And when new faces were shown on each day, observers that produced perfect accuracy on one day made many misidentifications on another (Experiment 2). However, a few individuals also performed with consistent high accuracy in these tests. These findings suggest that accuracy and consistency are separable indices of face-matching ability, and both measures are necessary to provide a precise index of a person's face processing skill. We discuss whether these measures could provide the basis for a selection tool for occupations that depend on accurate person identification.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029635

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People have very little insight into their own face identification ability.

    “In general, people have very little insight into their own face identification ability [31–34]”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Rakow, T.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2012
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
277-291
ISSN
  • 1939-2192
  • 1076-898X
Cited by
57
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review