Memory for Faces

Running Head: FACIAL RECOGNITION IN EYEWITNESS MEMORY 1

Facial Recognition: Eye Gaze, Confidence, and Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory for

Target Faces at Different Ages

Brandon Bogus

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

FACIAL RECOGNITION IN EYEWITNESS MEMORY

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to determine facial recognition accuracy in

eyewitness memory in terms of eye gaze and confidence ratings when altering the age of

lineup targets. Previous studies have focused on testing participants’ memory using

pictures of individuals where the pictures used in the encoding and recognition phase

were taken at roughly the same time. This sparks the question of how facial recognition

accuracy is affected when a significant amount of time passes between the encoding and

recognition phase. Forty-seven undergraduate psychology students from UNL

participated in the study in exchange for research credit. Investigators sought out subjects

who volunteered to view photos of individuals, complete a filler task, view more photos

of individuals while stating if a particular individual was previously seen and their

confidence level of identification, and answering demographic questions. Memory of a

target’s appearance is less accurate as the age gap increases between encoding and

recognition. Confidence is a weak predictor of memory accuracy. No relationships were

found in gaze time between external and internal features when shown an unfamiliar or a

familiar face or when shown a younger face followed by an older face of the same

person. Future research proposes a study that looks at the relationship between gaze time

on a particular facial feature and memory accuracy.

2


Facial Recognition: Eye Gaze, Confidence, and Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory for

Target Faces at Different Ages

In 2011, a Dallas man by the name of Cornelius Dupree was declared innocent of

the crime for which he served 30 years in prison. He was convicted of rape and robbery

of a young woman in 1979 and was sentenced to 75 years in prison after the female

victim identified Dupree as the perpetrator. After serving 30 years in prison, DNA

evidence revealed that he was not the offender (Green & Heilbrun, 2014). Unfortunately,

this is not the only case in which eyewitness misidentification lead to conviction of an

innocent person. Another alarming example is the People v. LeGrand (2007) case. In

1991, a cab driver was stabbed to death in Manhattan. Four people witnessed the event

and formed a composite sketch of the assailant. Two years later, the defendant was

identified as a possible suspect after being arrested for an unrelated burglary. Because the

police were unable to find any witnesses to the stabbing at the time, the homicide case

remained dormant until 1998 when the defendant was again arrested for burglary.

Authorities were able to locate the four original witnesses, three of whom identified the

defendant as the perpetrator. Although there was no other evidence connecting the

defendant to the stabbing, in 1999, the defendant was charged with second degree murder

and sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. The court eventually reversed the

defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial on the grounds that they eyewitness

testimony was insufficient evidence. Approximately 75 percent of 215 DNA-based

exonerations (some of whom served time on death row) were cases of mistaken

identification that were accepted by juries as evidence that those innocent individuals

3


were guilty (Wells, Cutler, & Hasel, 2008). A study of actual eyewitness identification

attempts showed that one in five eyewitnesses selected an innocent person (Valentine,

Pickering, & Darling, 2003). According to the Innocence Project, the largest organization

devoted to proving wrongful convictions, mistaken identifications account for more

wrongful convictions than do false confessions, problems with snitches, and defective or

fraudulent science combined (Innocence Project, 2008). The National Institute of Justice

estimates that eyewitnesses in the United States implicate approximately 75,000

defendants every year (Department of Justice, 1999).

Many factors encompass legal decision making when involving eyewitnesses.

These individuals must accurately retrieve information from past events to make crucial

inferences. Memory, confidence, and facial recognition accuracy play an important role

during this process (Balfour & Pozzulo, 2006; Paiva, Berman, Cutler, Platania, &

Weipert, 2011). Figuring out how these factors affect eyewitness identification may give

more accurate information to legal decision makers, which could lead to fewer wrongful

convictions. Police investigators and jurors will understand how eyewitness testimony

accuracy is related to how much time has passed between the witnessing incident and

identifying the perpetrator in a lineup. Identifying the differences in eye gaze when

eyewitnesses are shown a familiar face compared to an unfamiliar face, and a younger

face compared to an older face of the same person, will give experts a reference for facial

recognition when working with eyewitnesses. Knowing this and how accurate the

individual’s memory is will inform legal decision makers on the credibility of the

eyewitness testimony and, hence, will lead to a safer environment for the general public

by making accurate decisions on criminal and civil cases. When children go missing,

4


investigators will know what type of photos to release to the public to best serve the

memory of its citizens to aid in the search. A majority of past research on eyewitness

memory has focused on using pictures of individuals where the pictures used in the

encoding/study phase and the recognition/test phase were taken at roughly the same time

(e.g., Alenezi & Bindemann, 2013; Bindemann, Avetisyan, & Rakow, 2012). This study

emphasizes the importance of aging in the eyewitness identification process while

focusing on facial features.

Features of the Face

The face is the most distinctive and widely used tool people use to identify others

(Bruce & Young, 1986). Recognition of familiar faces involves an interaction of different

functional components. One such component is a pictorial code, which is a description of

a picture that contains details such as lighting, grain and flaws of the photo, as well as

capturing the pose and expression portrayed. People also have the ability to put together

structural codes, which capture components of the face that help distinguish it from other

faces. Structural codes are identified in both pictures and real life situations. Bruce and

Young (1986) found that certain areas of the face provide more information about a

person’s identity than other areas. Internal features, which are areas of the face that are

less changeable (e.g., eyes, nose, mouth), are more informative for recognizing familiar

faces. People also apply information to an unfamiliar face, such as age, sex, personality,

intelligence and linking the face to a known individual. This is known as a visually

derived semantic code. In contrast, people use an identity-specific semantic code when

dealing with familiar faces. This may describe a person’s occupation, his/her social

circle, where he/she is typically seen, etc. People observe facial shapes and postures to

5


identify specific emotions that are evoked from a face, which Bruce and Young (1986)

refer to as an expression code. A combination of these functions is critical for facial

identification; however, there are flaws within this system.

Age Research

People are error-prone when attempting to match photos of unfamiliar faces,

which leads to misidentifications. For example, Bindeman et al. (2012) found substantial

differences in identification accuracy and variation in consistency between observers

when attempting to match photos of unfamiliar faces on different days. In other words,

they responded differently to the same faces on different days and identity accuracy

decreased as days increased.

In real life situations, significant time passes between the eye witnessing incident

and identifying the perpetrator in a lineup (Neave, 1998). This allows the culprit to

undergo changes in appearance either naturally or intentionally. Hair is a primary

indicator when describing a stranger by children and adults so culprits can easily alter

their appearance. When it comes to eyewitness identification, people provide less correct

identifications when the culprit’s appearance changes (Balfour & Pozzulo, 2006). This is

true for both children and adults when viewing lineups with a simultaneous presentation

and sequential lineup.

The target’s appearance can also change in terms of physical structures in the

face. In missing child cases, the child might look significantly different if several years

have passed between abduction and recognition. Pose, expression, and illumination

changes may occur when two photos of a person are taken years apart (Chellappa, Sinha,

& Phillips, 2010). Facial landmarks tend to drift with aging, especially between the ages

6


of 2 and 18, which appear to characterize the facial shape variations associated with

aging. Previous studies have concluded that more current photos of children result in

better facial recognition (Lampinen, Miller, & Dehon, 2012). In older adults, the texture

of the skin can change due to weight loss or gain, hair loss, make-up, etc. Several

environmental factors affect aging, including solar radiation, smoking, drug use, and

stress level (Albert, Ricanek, & Patterson, 2007). Environmental and biological factors

can help accelerate or delay the aging process.

Determining information about age may be necessary for efficient encoding of

faces. George and Hole (1998) found through their research that people are just as

accurate when shown a face and recognize the person at an older age as they are when

shown a face and recognize the person at roughly the same age. In contrast, recognition is

significantly lower when people view a face that is younger than the one first shown.

However, it is important to note what the age differences are. For example, there is much

more change in the first few years of life than there is change in a few years during the

middle of life. Given this non-linear, growth-related change throughout aging, the more a

face is perceived as changing from the one that was originally encoded, the more difficult

it is for one to accurately recognize it. With this being said, the findings of George and

Hole (1998) demonstrated that it is possible to recognize a face that has changed

structurally since it was last seen, because there are growth-related structure changes

associated with aging.

Eyewitness Confidence

Studies have shown that eyewitness confidence is malleable, and several factors,

including confirmatory feedback, repeated questioning, and public displays of

7


confidence, increase eyewitness confidence and erode the relation between confidence

and identification accuracy (Bradfield, Wells, & Olson, 2002; Wells, Memon, & Penrod,

2006). Most jurors are unaware of this and consider eyewitness confidence to be reliable

and are heavily influenced by this when evaluating culpability (Cutler, Dexter, & Penrod,

1990).

Confidence levels of the eyewitness at the time of identification tend to predict

greater accuracy than confidence levels during trial (Bradfield et al., 2002). Knowing

this, eyewitness confidence should be recorded immediately after identification so jurors

have the opportunity to evaluate the inflated confidence during trial in light of the

confidence level during identification, giving greater weight to the latter.

Eye-tracking Research

Tracking eye movements is an effective way to study face processing

(McDonnell, Bornstein, Laub, Mills, & Dodd, 2014). Previous studies have applied eye-

tracking technology to eyewitness memory research (e.g., Flowe, 2011; Flowe & Cottrell,

2011). In simultaneous lineups, participants spent more time looking at faces that were

positively identified than faces that were not identified (Flowe & Cottrell, 2011). This

study also found that participants view incorrectly positively identified faces longer than

correctly identified faces.

In regards to facial features, other studies found that participants are more

accurate at distinguishing faces when focusing on internal features (eyes, nose, and

mouth) as opposed to external features (hair; Fletcher, Butavicius, & Lee, 2008;

Nakabayashi, Loyd-Jones, Butcher, & Liu, 2012). However, external features may be

more important in face perception and recognition than internal features. People have

8


difficulty recognizing that the internal features of two faces are the same if they each

have different external features (Maurer, Le Grand, & Mondloch, 2002; Young,

Hellawell, & Hay, 1987). Also, when shown alone, external features of unfamiliar faces

are more recognizable than internal features shown alone (Ellis, Shepherd, & Davies,

1979; Young, Hay, McWeeny, Flude, & Ellis, 1985).

Present Study

These situations lead to questions of how well eyewitnesses can recognize a

person as that person ages, where eyewitnesses tend to focus during encoding and

recognition, if there are differences between viewing people at younger and older ages,

and how confidence relates to identification accuracy. This study will seek to answer

these questions using an eye-tracking machine and photos of the same individual at

different ages. We hypothesized the following:

1) In relation to the Neave (1998) article, the memory of a target’s appearance will

be less accurate as the age gap increases between encoding and recognition when

participants view the same target during encoding and recognition (i.e., doesn’t

include foils).

2) Using findings from the Bradfield et al. (2002) article, confidence will be at best

weakly associated with memory accuracy.

3) Drawing from the Bruce and Young (1986) article, individuals will gaze more at

external facial features (e.g., hairstyle and color) when shown an unfamiliar face

(not previously seen) and will gaze more at internal facial features (e.g., eyes,

nose, mouth) when shown a familiar (previously viewed) face.

9


4) Individuals will gaze more at external facial features when shown a younger face

and will gaze more at internal facial features when shown an older face of the

same person.

Method

Participants

Forty-seven undergraduate Psychology University of Nebraska - Lincoln students

were recruited and compensated with research participation credit. They had a mean age

of 19.79 (Std = 1.90) with a range from 18 to 28. Fourteen (29.79 %) of these participants

were male and 33 (70.21%) were female. Four (8.51%) were Asian American, 42

(89.36%) were European American and one (2.13%) was Hispanic American.

Materials

We used an eye-tracking machine connected to two computers to place on the

participant’s head with two cameras extended out in front of the face to track eye gaze.

We designated one computer to configure the eye-tracking machine while the other was

used for the participants to complete the tasks. Participants used a keyboard to submit

responses to questions. We used two computer programs for the study: Eyelink and

MediaLab. Eyelink was used for the first three phases, which involved using the eye-

tracking machine and for the participant to complete a survey. With consent, we gathered

various photos of University of Nebraska – Lincoln students of both genders and at

different ages for phase one and phase three. MediaLab was used to obtain demographic

information. A research assistant provided a consent form for each participant to sign and

date.

Procedure

10


Before each participant arrived to the study a research assistant set up both

computers and loaded Eyelink and MediaLab. The research assistant greeted each

participant and gave a brief overview of the study. The research assistant handed a

consent form to the participant that described the study in detail and asked each of them

to provide a signature. The research assistant then placed the eye-tracking machine on the

head of the participant and began calibrating the device. This involved adjusting the

cameras so they were pointed and centered on the eyes, fine-tuning the resolution to

produce a clear picture and setting the focus of the eye-tracker on the pupil. Then, the

research assistant calibrated the machine, in which he asked the participant to follow a

dot on the computer screen with their eyes while keeping their head still. Validation,

involving the same process as calibration, followed this step to ensure accuracy of the

eye-tracker. Once calibration and validation were successfully completed, the participant

proceeded through the four phases, which took approximately 30 minutes. We randomly

assigned each participant with a number (1-6), which placed them in separate groups of

viewing different photos. We performed preliminary analyses to counterbalance the

groups of photos to make sure that one group of 18 photos wasn’t different than the

others and to make certain that no individual target stood out. This ensured that age was

the variable being manipulated and not a particular photo of an individual.

1) Encoding phase. During phase one, the research assistant set up Eyelink for the

participant to view 18 photos of people presented randomly, one at a time, for three

seconds each. The photos consisted of both genders and at three different age groups (10-

13, 15-16, and 18-22).

11


2) Filler task. Phase two served as an unrelated filler task in which participants

completed a survey on their beliefs on how memory works in various contexts.

3) Recognition phase. In phase three, we tested participants on their memory of

the people they saw earlier, all presented as young adults. The photos of each of these

people were shown randomly, one at a time, for five seconds, mixed in with an equal

number of people they had never seen before (36 photos total). After each photo,

participants responded whether or not they recognized the person and gave a confidence

rating based on a 7-point scale.

4) Follow-up questionnaire. In phase four, participants completed a demographic

survey in which they recorded their age, gender and ethnicity. Participants also stated

whether or not they recognized any of the target photos from outside of the experiment.

Results

It was hypothesized that the memory of a target’s appearance will be less accurate

as the age gap increases between encoding and recognition when participants view the

same target during encoding and recognition (i.e., doesn’t include foils). As

hypothesized, there was a significant difference in accuracy across the age categories

with participants recognizing targets at a greater rate when previously seen targets were

in the old age category, F(2,880) = 52.77, p < .0001. The old age category (18-22) scored

higher than both the middle (15-16) and young (10-13) age categories, t’s > 3.43, p

< .0007. The middle age category scored higher than young age category, t(880) = 7.37, p

< .0001. Also, the foils category scored higher than the middle age category, t(1760) =

6.08, p < .0001 and the young age category, t(1760) = 9.06, p < .0001 yet scored lower

than the old age category, t(1760) = 3.30, p < .01. The old age category had a mean

12


accuracy score of 77.89%, the middle age category scored 47.92%, the young age

category scored 34.04%, and the foil category scored 67.54%. In full support of the

research hypothesis, the memory of a target’s appearance was less accurate as the age gap

increases between encoding and recognition, excluding the foils category.

The second hypothesis was that confidence will be at best weakly associated with

memory accuracy. Pearson’s correlation between confidence and memory accuracy was

r(1760) = .1191, p < .0001. Additionally, Pearson’s correlation between confidence and

memory accuracy for the old, middle, young and foil categories, respectively, were

r(285) = .31009, p < .0001; r(313) = .02029, p = .7207; r(285) = .12273, p = .0384;

r(881) = .1331, p < .0001. In support of the research hypothesis, confidence was at best

weakly associated with memory accuracy.

The third hypothesis was that individuals will gaze more at external facial features

when shown an unfamiliar face and will gaze more at internal facial features when shown

a familiar face. Contrary to the research hypothesis, there was no significant difference in

gaze time for external features (e.g. hairstyle and color) between encoding and

recognition, t(6759) = 0.11, p = .9107 with a mean gaze time percentage of 2.96% during

encoding and 3.05% during recognition. For internal features, there was no significant

difference in gaze time at the eyes between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 0.68, p

= .4984 with a mean gaze time percentage of 46.08% during encoding and 45.57% during

recognition. There was no significant different in gaze time at the nose between encoding

and recognition, t(6759) = 1.61, p = .1085 with a mean gaze time percentage of 15.01%

during encoding and 16.24% during recognition. There was a significant different in gaze

time at the mouth between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 4.51, p = .0001 with a

13


mean gaze time percentage of 18.27% during encoding and 14.81% during recognition.

Contrary to the research hypothesis, there was no significant difference in gaze time

between external and internal features when shown an unfamiliar face versus a familiar

face.

The fourth hypothesis was that individuals will gaze more at external facial

features when shown a younger face and will gaze more at internal facial features when

shown an older face of the same person. Contrary to the research hypothesis, there was

no significant difference in gaze time for external features in the young age category

between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 0.20, p = .8414 with a mean gaze time

percentage of 3.17% during encoding and 3.35% during recognition. For internal

features, there was no significant difference in gaze time at the eyes in the young age

category between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 0.62, p = .5362 with a mean gaze

time percentage of 45.41% during encoding and 46.22% during recognition. There was

no significant difference in gaze time at the nose in the young age category between

encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 1.25, p = .2115 with a mean gaze time percentage of

14.92% during encoding and 16.57% during recognition. There was a significant

difference in gaze time at the mouth in the young age category between encoding and

recognition, t(6759) = 5.54, p = .0001 with a mean gaze time percentage of 21.43%

during encoding and 14.12% during recognition. Also contrary to the research

hypothesis, there was no significant difference in gaze time for external features in the

middle age category between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 0.48, p = .6300 with a

mean gaze time percentage of 3.80% during encoding and 3.17% during recognition. For

internal features, there was a significant difference in gaze time at the eyes in the middle

14


age category between encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 2.67, p = .0077 with a mean

gaze time percentage of 41.90% during encoding and 45.41% during recognition. There

was no significant difference in gaze time at the nose in the middle age category between

encoding and recognition, t(6759) = 1.17, p = .2425 with a mean gaze time percentage of

13.39% during encoding and 14.92% during recognition. There was no significant

difference in gaze time at the mouth in the middle age category between encoding and

recognition, t(6759) = 0.89, p = .3729 with a mean gaze time percentage of 20.26%

during encoding and 21.43% during recognition. Contrary to the research hypothesis,

there was no significant difference in gaze time between external and internal features

when shown a younger face followed by an older face of the same person.

Discussion

The results from these analyses provided support for some of the research

hypotheses. The third hypothesis, stating that individuals will gaze more at external facial

features when shown an unfamiliar face and will gaze more at internal facial features

when shown a familiar face, was not supported. This showed that there was no significant

relationship in gaze time between external and internal features when shown an

unfamiliar face versus a familiar face. Also, the fourth hypothesis, stating that individuals

will gaze more at external facial features when shown a younger face and will gaze more

at internal facial features when shown an older face of the same person, was not

supported. This showed that there was no significant relationship in gaze time between

external and internal features when shown a younger face followed by an older face of

the same person. However, the first hypothesis, stating that the memory of a target’s

appearance will be less accurate as the age gap increases between encoding and

15


recognition when participants view the same target during encoding and recognition, was

fully supported. This showed that there was a significant difference in accuracy across the

age categories with participants recognizing targets at a greater rate when previously seen

targets were in the old age category. Also, the second hypothesis, stating that confidence

will be at best weakly associated with memory accuracy, was supported. This showed

that confidence plays a weak role when determining memory accuracy.

Some of these findings can relate to previous research. The conclusion that

memory of a target’s appearance is less accurate as the age gap increases between

encoding and recognition relates to the research findings from Neave (1998). They both

found that as age increases between encoding and recognition, memory accuracy of

target’s appearance decreases. The conclusion that confidence was at best weakly

associated with memory accuracy relates to the research findings of Bradfield et al.

(2002). They both found that confidence cannot be a significant predictor of memory

accuracy. However, there were some contradictions. The conclusion that there was no

significant relationship in gaze time between external and internal features when shown

an unfamiliar face versus a familiar face or when shown a younger face followed by an

older face of the same person contradicted the research findings of Bruce and Young

(1986). Their study found that internal facial features are more informative for

recognizing familiar faces.

This study contributes to the field of psychological science in a number of ways.

The findings of the study support previous research, such as memory accuracy of a

target’s appearance increasing as the age gap between encoding and recognition

decreases. With this information, police investigators and jurors will understand how

16


eyewitness testimony accuracy is related to how much time has passed between the

witnessing incident and identifying the perpetrator in a lineup. When children go missing,

investigators will know what type of photos to release to the public to best serve the

memory of its citizens to aid in the search. Most importantly, this information may help

lead fewer wrongful convictions of innocent people. Also, the conclusion that confidence

is at best weakly associated with memory accuracy supported previous research.

Knowing this and how accurate the individual’s memory is will inform legal decision

makers on the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and, hence, will lead to a safer

environment for the general public by making accurate decisions on criminal and civil

cases.

The findings of this study, along with previous studies (Neave, 1998; Bradfield et

al., 2002; Bruce & Young, 1986), can be integrated to raise questions for future research.

To uncover the contradictions made between the current study and the Bruce and Young

(1986) study, it may be interesting for future research to look at the relationship between

gaze time on a particular facial feature and memory accuracy. For example, one group of

participants will view only the eyes during encoding and recognition; another group will

view only the nose during encoding and recognition, etc., and see how each particular

facial features relates to memory accuracy. Findings from a study of this nature will

provide individuals with information on what facial feature to focus eye gaze on more or

less when viewing an unfamiliar face during encoding or a familiar face during

recognition. Eyewitnesses to a crime will know which facial features to direct their

attention to during the crime and during identification procedures to produce higher

memory accuracy.

17


References

Albert, M., Ricanek, K., & Patterson, E. (2007). A review of the literature on the aging

adult skull and face: implications for forensic science research and applications.

Forensic Science Int’l, 1-9.

Alenezi, H. M., & Bindemann, M. (2013). The Effect of Feedback on Face-Matching

Accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 735-753. doi:10.1002/acp.2968

Balfour, Joanna, D. (2006). Children’s and adult’s eyewitness identification accuracy

when a culprit changes his appearance: comparing simultaneous and elimination

lineup procedures. Legal and Criminological Psychology 11, 25-34.

Bindemann, M., Avetisyan, M., & Rakow, T. (2012). Who can recognize unfamiliar

faces? Individual differences in observer consistency in person identification.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 277 – 291.

Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming

feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112–120. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.112

Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal Of

Psychology, 77(3), 305.

Chellappa, R., Sinha, P., & Phillips, P. (2010). Face recognition by computers and

humans. Computer, 43(2), 46-55.

Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness

identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.

doi:10.1007/BF01062972

18


Department of Justice (1999). Postconviction DNA testing: Recommendations for

handling requests. Retrieved December 19, 2001, from

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/177626.pdf

Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J. W., & Davies, G. M. (1979). Identification of familiar and

unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: Some implications for

theories of face recognition. Perception, 8, 431–439.

Fletcher, K., Butavicius, M. A., & Lee, M. D. (2008). Attention to internal face features

in unfamiliar face matching. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 379–394.

doi:10.1348=000712607X235872

Flowe, H. (2011). An exploration of visual behavior in eyewitness identification tests.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 244–254. doi:10.1002=acp.1670

Flowe, H., & Cottrell, G. W. (2011). An examination of simultaneous lineup

identification decision processes using eye tracking. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 25, 443–451. doi:10.1002=acp.1711

George, A., Hole, J. (1998). Recognising the ageing face: the role of age in face

processing. School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, 27, 1123-1134.

Green, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2014). Psychology and the legal system. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Innocence Project (2008). Understand the causes: Eyewitness misidentification.

Retrieved July 23, 2008, from

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

19


Lampinen, J. M., Miller, J. T., & Dehon, H. (2012). Depicting the missing: prospective

and retrospective person memory for age progressed images. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 26, 167-173.

Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural

processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 255–260.

McDonnell, G. P., Bornstein, B. H., Laub, C. E., Mills, M., & Dodd, M. M. (2014).

Perceptual processes in the cross-race effect: evidence from eyetracking. Basic

and Applied Social Psychology, 0, 1-16.

Nakabayashi, K., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., Butcher, N., & Liu, C. H. (2012). Independent

influences of verbalization and race on the configural and featural processing of

faces: A behavioral and eye movement study. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 61–77.

Neave, R. (1998). Age changes to the face in adulthood. In J. G. Clement & D. L. Ranson

(Eds.), Craniofacial Identification in Forensic Medicine (pp. 225 – 231). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Paiva, M., Berman, G. L., Cutler, B. L., Platania, J., & Weipert, R. (2011). Influence of

confidence inflation and explanations for changes in confidence on evaluations of

eyewitness identification accuracy. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 16(2),

266-276. doi:10.1348/135532510X503340

People v. LeGrand, 867 N.E.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007)

Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness

identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 17, 969-993.

20


Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its

probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75.

Wells, G. L., Cutler, B. L., & Hasel, L. E. (2008). The duke lacrosse rape investigation:

how not to do eyewitness-identification procedures. In M. L. Seigel (Ed.), Race to

injustice: lessons learned from the duke lacrosse rape case (pp. 307-321).

Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Young, A. W., Hay, D. C., McWeeny, K. H., Flude, B. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1985).

Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features.

Perception, 14, 737–746.

Young, A., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. (1987). Configurational information in face

perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.

21

Memory for Faces

Documents

Transcript of Memory for Faces