Figure - available from: Journal of Experimental Criminology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Funnel plot of LORs for foil identifications from target-present lineups (TP-foils). Open circles are imputed data, following Duval and Tweedy (2000)
Source publication
Objectives
We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the construction of facial composites affects witnesses’ lineup identification decisions.Methods
We located 23 studies (56 effects, 2276 participants). We consider effects of constructing composites on (a) correct identifications, and (b) incorrect identifications, from target-present lineup...
Citations
... Conflicting results have been reported in the literature, including beneficial effects, no effects, and harmful effects of composite construction on later identification accuracy. It is therefore not surprising that a recent meta-analysis (Tredoux et al. 2021) found no significant overall effects of composite construction on identification performance. Further, they concluded that the current literature does not provide an adequate basis to test potential moderators, even though we might expect that the effects of constructing a composite might depend on the quality of the encoding, the quality of the composite, and the presence or absence of the perpetrator in the line-up, among other things. ...
... In conclusion, the findings of the narrative analysis (Sporer et al. 2020) and meta-analysis (Tredoux et al. 2021) are not in line with the strong claims published in news outlets and practitioner guidelines, which suggest that viewing or creating facial composites impairs memory. Based on the current body of scientific evidence, we are not yet able to formulate sound and empirically based policy recommendations about the ways in which viewing or creating a facial composite may impact memory. ...
Law enforcement agencies often rely on practical technologies to help witnesses and victims of crimes construct likenesses of faces from memory. These ‘face composites’ are typically circulated to law enforcement officers and made accessible to the public in the hope that someone familiar with the depicted person will recognise their likeness and thus provide the police with a suspect. We will review methods for constructing such likenesses from memory dating back to the portrait parlé of Alphonse Bertillon (Signaletic instructions including the theory and practice of anthropometrical identification. Werner Company, 1896) and the composite images of Francis Galton (Nature 18:97-100, 1878). We will also review more modern methods, ranging from the overlay techniques of Identi-Kit (McDonald, c 1959) and Photo-Fit (Penry J. The Police Journal 43:307, 1970) to feature-based computerised composite systems such as Identi-Kit 2000, FACES, and ProMat. Most early systems were based on the common-sense notion that sectioning a face is invertible: just as a face can be sectioned into components, so it can be recreated by arrangements of sections. This assumption appears to be unwarranted. The underlying problem with earlier face systems may have been the absence of a representational or computational theory. This led in the late 1990s to the development of the so-called third-generation holistic composite systems, which are based on underlying statistical and mathematical models of face images (e.g. ID [Tredoux et al. South African Computer Journal 2006:90–97, 2006], EvoFIT [Frowd CD, Hancock PJB, & Carson D. ACM Transactions on Applied Psychology (TAP) 1:1-21, 2004a], E-FIT [Gibson et al., International Conference on Visualisation, 146–151, 2003]). A special focus of the chapter will be on these newer technologies and other recent technological innovations. Our approach will be to review (i) the methods of operation, (ii) the techniques identified by psychologists and other researchers for improving the quality of information obtained from memory, and (iii) the empirical data on the effectiveness of these systems at representing faces from memory. We will consider related issues, too, including the question of whether face composites damage witness memory, and the ethics of face composition.KeywordsMemoryEyewitnessFace compositeFace likenessSynthetic face
... However, the finding that seeing a lookalike on social media reduces correct identification by over 30% is dramatic compared to other studies (Memon et al., 2011). Unlike some previous research (e.g., Davis et al., 2014), that has found composite construction leads to a higher rate of correct identifications compared to a control, our results were more similar to the majority of composite research (Pike G. E. et al., 2019;Tredoux et al., 2020) in finding no significant improvement in correct identifications between the Culprit and Control conditions. Jenkins et al. (2011) study could offer some insight into our results. ...
Eyewitnesses to crimes sometimes search for a culprit on social media before viewing a police lineup, but it is not known whether this affects subsequent lineup identification accuracy. The present online study was conducted to address this. Two hundred and eighty-five participants viewed a mock crime video, and after a 15–20 min delay either (i) viewed a mock social media site including the culprit, (ii) viewed a mock social media site including a lookalike, or (iii) completed a filler task. A week later, participants made an identification from a photo lineup. It was predicted that searching for a culprit on social media containing the lookalike (rather than the culprit) would reduce lineup identification accuracy. There was a significant association between social media exposure and lineup accuracy for the Target Present lineup (30% more of the participants who saw the lookalike on social media failed to positively identify the culprit than participants in the other conditions), but for the Target Absent lineup (which also included the lookalike) there was no significant association with lineup identification accuracy. The results suggest that if an eyewitness sees a lookalike (where they are expecting to see the culprit) when conducting a self-directed search on social media, they are less likely to subsequently identify the culprit in the formal ID procedure.
... this issue here, since it has been reviewed in a recent meta-analysis by Tredoux et al., 2020). 2 Of course, more complex case constellations are conceivable, for example, when both Witnesses A and B (and/or additional witnesses) construct composites and are, or are not, exposed to each other's composites. ...
Eyewitnesses often create face likenesses, which are published in the hope that potential suspects will be reported to the police. Witnesses exposed to another witness's composite, however, may be positively or negatively influenced by such composites.. A good likeness may facilitate identification, but a bad likeness that resembles an innocent suspect may lead to a misidentification ('mix‐up'). We offer a theoretical review, and comprehensively summarize extant studies descriptively because most studies did not report enough statistical details to warrant a formal meta‐analysis. Some studies showed negative exposure effects, particularly when the innocent suspect and composite shared misleading features. Studies that exposed witnesses to "good" composites reported positive or no effects on lineup performance, and some highly powered studies also showed no effect. We outline suggestions for further investigations under ecologically valid conditions. We also make recommendations for investigative practice, and the evaluation of identification evidence by fact finders or courts.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
When Face Recognition Goes Wrong explores the myriad ways that humans and machines make mistakes in facial recognition. Adopting a critical stance throughout, the book explores why and how humans and machines make mistakes, covering topics including racial and gender biases, neuropsychological disorders, and widespread algorithm problems. The book features personal anecdotes alongside real-world examples to showcase the often life-changing consequences of facial recognition going wrong. These range from problems with everyday social interactions through to eyewitness identification leading to miscarriages of justice and border control passport verification.
Concluding with a look to the future of facial recognition, the author asks the world’s leading experts what are the big questions that still need to be answered, and can we train humans and machines to be super recognisers? This book is a must-read for anyone interested in facial recognition, or in psychology, criminal justice and law.
When looking for a crime suspect, the police may ask an eyewitness to construct a visual likeness (‘facial composite’) of the perpetrator, to be distributed to the public via newspaper articles, television programmes, or social media. The dissemination of facial composites can have a major impact on police investigations. It often results in a deluge of tips and could potentially influence the memory of other eyewitnesses in the case. In this article, we review research on how to interview eyewitnesses for the optimal construction of facial composites from memory. We discuss types of composite systems and their effectiveness, including the ‘gold standard’ of measuring effectiveness. We compare the question posed to the public when a facial composite is disseminated to face-matching tasks faced by immigration officials and store clerks, but then with the added difficulty of the image being a composite of unknown resemblance to the target. We also discuss the potential danger of composites contaminating other eyewitnesses’ memory, highlighting the lessons learnt from research on unconscious transference. We pose several challenges for future researchers and practitioners. We conclude that evidence-based guidance is lacking to inform the police on whether and how to use facial composites in their investigations.
The presence of a weapon in the perpetration of a crime can impede an observer’s ability to describe and/or recognise the person responsible. In the current experiment, we explore whether weapons when present at encoding of a target identity interfere with the construction of a facial composite. Participants encoded an unfamiliar target face seen either on its own or paired with a knife. Encoding duration (10 or 30 s) was also manipulated. The following day, participants recalled the face and constructed a composite of it using a holistic system (EvoFIT). Correct naming of the participants’ composites was found to reduce reliably when target faces were paired with the weapon at 10 s but not at 30 s. These data suggest that the presence of a weapon reduces the effectiveness of facial composites following a short encoding duration. Implications for theory and police practice are discussed.
