Cited by 53

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Facing the facts: Naive participants have only moderate insight into their face recognition and face perception abilities

Bobak, Anna K, Mileva, Viktoria R, Hancock, Peter JB·2019·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

A reliable self-report measure to assess the broad spectrum of face recognition ability (FRA) from developmental prosopagnosia (DP) to super-recognition would make a valuable contribution to initial screening of large populations. We examined the performance of 96 naive participants and seven super-recognisers (SRs) using a range of face and object processing tasks and a newly developed 20-item questionnaire, the Stirling Face Recognition Scale (SFRS). Overall, our findings suggest that young adults have only moderate insight into their FRA, but those who have been previously informed of their (exceptional) performance, the SRs, estimate their FRA accurately. Principal component analysis of SFRS yielded two components. One loads on questions about low ability and correlates with perceptual tasks, and one loads on questions about high FRA and correlates with memory for faces. We recommend that self-report measures of FRA should be used in addition to behavioural testing, to allow for cross-study comparisons, until new, more reliable instruments of self-report are developed. However, self-report measures should not be solely relied upon to identify highly skilled individuals. Implications of these results for theory and applied practice are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1747021818776145

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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]”

    From Do professional facial image comparison training courses work? (2019) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion reports that young adults have only moderate insight into their face recognition and perception abilities, which supports the claim that insight is limited. But “very little” overstates that finding, and the paper notes that people who have received feedback on exceptional performance can estimate their ability more precisely. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.3758/BF03206441 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2004.04.010 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.023 · DOI
  4. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00491 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/a0022106 · DOI
  6. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.132 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/23311908.2014.986903 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.05.003 · DOI
  9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148148 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/acp.3170 · DOI
  11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01378 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1161059 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/02643290903343149 · DOI
  14. 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1080/02643294.2012.754745 · DOI
  16. 10.3758/s13428-011-0160-2 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/bjop.12103 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1080/02643290701380491 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001 · DOI
  20. 10.1098/rsos.160923 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70502-1 · DOI
  22. 10.1076/jcen.21.3.312.917 · DOI
  23. 10.1076/jcen.23.3.265.1183 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/17470218.2017.1310911 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/01443410303216 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.014 · DOI
  27. 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1161058 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1111/1467-6494.00023 · DOI
  31. Rice X., 2016, The Super Recognisers of Scotland Yard. The New Statesman.
  32. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150036 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.12.004 · DOI
  34. 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1098/rsos.150305 · DOI
  36. 10.1037/a0033469 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.005 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.03.005 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/13825585.2016.1244247 · DOI
  40. 10.1177/1747021818765652 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.visres.2016.12.014 · DOI
  42. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
  43. White D., Norell K., Phillips P. J., O’Toole A. J. (2017). Human factors in forensic face identification. In Handbook of biometrics for forensic science (pp. 195–218). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-50673-9_9 · DOI
  44. 10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1173076 · DOI
  46. 10.1177/1745691613518075 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bobak, A. K., Mileva, V. R., & Hancock, P. J.
Affiliations
Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2018-05-31
Volume
72
Issue
4
Pages
872-881
ISSN
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
Cited by
53
References
0
Language
en
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N007743/1)

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