You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs

Abstract In many real-world settings, individuals rarely present another person’s ID, which increases the likelihood that a screener will fail to detect it. Three experiments examined how within-person variability (i.e., differences between two images of the same person) and feedback may have influe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dawn R. Weatherford, William Blake Erickson, Jasmyne Thomas, Mary E. Walker, Barret Schein
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2020-01-01
Series:Cognitive Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0204-1
id doaj-df7f8af859f6466c8a0a6b4006b5a1b0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-df7f8af859f6466c8a0a6b4006b5a1b02021-01-31T16:39:33ZengSpringerOpenCognitive Research2365-74642020-01-015111510.1186/s41235-019-0204-1You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDsDawn R. Weatherford0William Blake Erickson1Jasmyne Thomas2Mary E. Walker3Barret Schein4Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M UniversityTexas A&M UniversityTexas A&M UniversityArkansas State UniversityAbstract In many real-world settings, individuals rarely present another person’s ID, which increases the likelihood that a screener will fail to detect it. Three experiments examined how within-person variability (i.e., differences between two images of the same person) and feedback may have influenced criterion shifting, thought to be one of the sources of the low-prevalence effect (LPE). Participants made identity judgments of a target face and an ID under either high, medium, or low mismatch prevalence. Feedback appeared after every trial, only error trials, or no trials. Experiment 1 used two controlled images taken on the same day. Experiment 2 used two controlled images taken at least 6 months apart. Experiment 3 used one controlled and one ambient image taken at least 1 year apart. Importantly, receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that feedback and greater within-person variability exacerbated the LPE by affecting both criterion and discriminability. These results carry implications for many real-world settings, such as border crossings and airports, where identity screening plays a major role in securing public safety.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0204-1Low-prevalence effectFacial identificationImposter identificationPerformance feedbackReceiver operating characteristic curves
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dawn R. Weatherford
William Blake Erickson
Jasmyne Thomas
Mary E. Walker
Barret Schein
spellingShingle Dawn R. Weatherford
William Blake Erickson
Jasmyne Thomas
Mary E. Walker
Barret Schein
You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
Cognitive Research
Low-prevalence effect
Facial identification
Imposter identification
Performance feedback
Receiver operating characteristic curves
author_facet Dawn R. Weatherford
William Blake Erickson
Jasmyne Thomas
Mary E. Walker
Barret Schein
author_sort Dawn R. Weatherford
title You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
title_short You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
title_full You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
title_fullStr You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
title_full_unstemmed You shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake IDs
title_sort you shall not pass: how facial variability and feedback affect the detection of low-prevalence fake ids
publisher SpringerOpen
series Cognitive Research
issn 2365-7464
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Abstract In many real-world settings, individuals rarely present another person’s ID, which increases the likelihood that a screener will fail to detect it. Three experiments examined how within-person variability (i.e., differences between two images of the same person) and feedback may have influenced criterion shifting, thought to be one of the sources of the low-prevalence effect (LPE). Participants made identity judgments of a target face and an ID under either high, medium, or low mismatch prevalence. Feedback appeared after every trial, only error trials, or no trials. Experiment 1 used two controlled images taken on the same day. Experiment 2 used two controlled images taken at least 6 months apart. Experiment 3 used one controlled and one ambient image taken at least 1 year apart. Importantly, receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that feedback and greater within-person variability exacerbated the LPE by affecting both criterion and discriminability. These results carry implications for many real-world settings, such as border crossings and airports, where identity screening plays a major role in securing public safety.
topic Low-prevalence effect
Facial identification
Imposter identification
Performance feedback
Receiver operating characteristic curves
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0204-1
work_keys_str_mv AT dawnrweatherford youshallnotpasshowfacialvariabilityandfeedbackaffectthedetectionoflowprevalencefakeids
AT williamblakeerickson youshallnotpasshowfacialvariabilityandfeedbackaffectthedetectionoflowprevalencefakeids
AT jasmynethomas youshallnotpasshowfacialvariabilityandfeedbackaffectthedetectionoflowprevalencefakeids
AT maryewalker youshallnotpasshowfacialvariabilityandfeedbackaffectthedetectionoflowprevalencefakeids
AT barretschein youshallnotpasshowfacialvariabilityandfeedbackaffectthedetectionoflowprevalencefakeids
_version_ 1724316135125417984