Effects of Post-exposure Description and Imaging on Subsequent Face Recognition Performance

Abstract

After viewing a crime, witnesses are frequently asked by police investigators to give a verbal description of the perpetrator. At a later time, witnesses may be asked to try to recognize the perpetrator in a lineup or a mugfile. The purpose of this research was to determine whether performance on a later recognition test is influenced by an earlier verbal description test of the target. Participants viewed six target faces, and after each, performed one of four post-exposure activities. Two were verbal description tasks. The descriptor checklist task had participants indicate, using a list of potential adjectives, those descriptors that best described the most recently seen face. The descriptor generate task had participants recall descriptors that best described the most recently seen face. Both description tasks were accomplished using a questionnaire that was identical except for the presence or absence of specific adjectives. Other participants were instructed to image the target face or they performed an irrelevant task during the post-exposure period. In a later recognition test, participants tried to find the targets in a set of faces containing 134 distractors. The results showed that participants using the checklist produced lower performance on the recognition test than participants who generated their own descriptors. Imaging produced the highest recognition performance but was not significantly different from the irrelevant condition. The recognition decrement of the descriptor checklist is explained in terms of interference caused by the presence of irrelevant face descriptors that added noise to participants' memory of the targets. Implications for testing witness memory by police investigators are discussed. For example, if verbal descriptions of faces are requested from eyewitnesses, descriptor recall may be preferred over a descriptor recognition because the former task does not degrade later recognition of the perpetrator.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chance

J. E.

Goldstein

A. G.

. 1976). Recognition of faces and verbal labels. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 384–386.

Deffenbacher

Horney

(1981). Psycho-legal aspects of face recognition. In Davies

G.M.

Ellis

H.D.

Shepherd

J.W.

(Eds.), Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 221–226). London: Academic Press.

Dent

H. R.

Stephenson

G. M.

(1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41–51.

Ellis

G. D.

Shepherd

J. W.

Davies

G. M.

(1980). The deterioration of verbal descriptions of faces over different delay intervals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 101–106.

Goulding

G. J.

(1971). Facial description ability. Police Research Bulletin, 19, 42–44.

Graefe

T. M.

Watkins

M. J.

(1980). Picture rehearsal: An effect of selectively attending to pictures no longer in view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 156–162.

Hall

D. F.

(1977). Obtaining eyewitness identifications in criminal identifications: Two experiments and some comments on the Zeitgeist in forensic psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society.

Jenkins

Davies

(1985). Contamination of facial memory through exposure to misleading composite pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 164–176.

Laughery

K. R.

(1977). Adjective descriptors used in generating sketches and Identi-kit composites (Report No. UHMUG-8). Unpublished manuscript, University of Houston.

10.

Laughery

K. R.

Duval

Wogalter

M. S.

(1986). Dynamics of face recall. In Ellis

H. D.

Jeeves

M. A.

Newcombe

Young

A. W.

(Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 373–387). Dordrect, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

11.

Laughery

K. R.

Fowler

R. F.

(1980). Sketch artist and Identi-kit procedures for recalling faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 307–316.

12.

Loftus

E. F.

Greene

(1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323–334.

13.

Mauldin

M. A.

Laughery

K. R.

(1981). Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 351–357.

14.

Neisser

(1988). Time present and time past. In Gruneberg

M. M.

Morris

P.E.

Sykes

R.N.

(Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, Vol. 2 (pp. 545–560). Chichester: Wiley.

15.

Read

J. D.

(1979). Rehearsal and recognition of human faces. American Journal of Psychology, 92, 71–85.

16.

Read

J. D.

Hammersley

Cross-Calvert

McFadzen

(1989). Rehearsal of faces and details in action events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 295–311.

17.

Schooler

J. W.

Engstler-Schooler

T. Y.

(1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71.

18.

Shepherd

J. W.

Davies

G. M.

Ellis

H. D.

(1978). How best shall a face be described? In Gruneberg

M.M.

Morris

P.E.

Sykes

R.N.

(Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory. London: Academic Press.

19.

Shepherd

J. W.

Davies

G. M

Ellis

H. D.

(1981). Studies of cue saliency. In Davies

G. M.

Ellis

H. D.

Shepherd

J. W.

(Eds). Perceiving and Remembering Faces. London: Academic Press.

20.

Sporer

S. L.

(1988). Long-term improvement of facial recognition through visual rehearsal. In Gruneberg

M. M.

Morris

P. E.

Sykes

R. N.

(Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, Vol. 1 (pp. 182–188). Chichester: Wiley.

21.

Williams

(1975). Application of signal detection parameters in a test of eyewitnesses to a crime. Center for Responsive Psychology, Report number CR-20, Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College, CUNY.

22.

Wogalter

M. S.

Cayard

J. A.

Jarrard

(in press). Massed vs. distributed exposure and imaging of faces: Changing the test view. Current Psychological Research and Reviews..

23.

Wogalter

M. S.

Laughery

K. R.

Thompson

B. G.

(1989). Eyewitness identification: Effects of composite construction on subsequent recognition performance. Unpublished manuscript, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.