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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |