Content uploaded by William Blake Erickson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Blake Erickson on Jun 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpcl20
Psychology, Crime & Law
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpcl20
The impact of weapons and unusual objects on
the construction of facial composites
William Blake Erickson, Charity Brown, Emma Portch, James Michael
Lampinen, John E. Marsh, Cristina Fodarella, Anna Petkovic, Carly Coultas,
Amanda Newby, Louisa Date, Peter J. B. Hancock & Charlie D. Frowd
To cite this article: William Blake Erickson, Charity Brown, Emma Portch, James Michael
Lampinen, John E. Marsh, Cristina Fodarella, Anna Petkovic, Carly Coultas, Amanda Newby,
Louisa Date, Peter J. B. Hancock & Charlie D. Frowd (2022): The impact of weapons and
unusual objects on the construction of facial composites, Psychology, Crime & Law, DOI:
10.1080/1068316X.2022.2079643
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2079643
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 20 Jun 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 20
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The impact of weapons and unusual objects on the
construction of facial composites
William Blake Erickson
a
, Charity Brown
b
, Emma Portch
c
, James
Michael Lampinen
d
, John E. Marsh
e
, Cristina Fodarella
e
, Anna Petkovic
e
,
Carly Coultas
e
, Amanda Newby
e
, Louisa Date
e
, Peter J. B. Hancock
f
and Charlie
D. Frowd
e
a
Department of Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, San Antonio, TX, USA;
b
School of Psychology, University
of Leeds, Leeds, UK;
c
Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK;
d
Department
of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA;
e
School of Psychology and Computer
Science, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK;
f
Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of
Stirling, Stirling, UK
ABSTRACT
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.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 September 2020
Accepted 10 May 2022
KEYWORDS
Facial composite; weapon;
EvoFIT; law enforcement
The presence of a weapon during the commission of a crime can lead to a weapon-focus
effect (WFE). This phenomenon is signalled by a marked decrease in eyewitness memory
performance for crime-related details when a weapon is present at the time of encoding
(see Fawcett et al., 2013 for review and meta-analysis). Laboratory testing has shown this
deficit in performance results in reduced recall for details of the event, aspects of the
crime scene and the perpetrator’s clothing, general appearance, and face (e.g. Fawcett
et al., 2013; Loftus et al., 1987; Maass & Köhnken, 1989). The most widely documented
effect of weapon presence is on identification accuracy: performance in a line-up or iden-
tity parade reduces for a participant observer exposed to a weapon (cf. no weapon seen;
e.g. Erickson et al., 2014; Fawcett et al., 2013; Loftus et al., 1987). In contrast, surveys of real
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
CONTACT Charlie D. Frowd cfrowd1@uclan.ac.uk School of Psychology and Computer Science, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2079643
cases have demonstrated a weaker effect of weapon presence compared to other factors
such as perpetrator race and duration of encoding (e.g. Tollestrup et al., 1994; Valentine
et al., 2003; Yuille & Cutshall, 1986).
Theoretical mechanisms behind weapon focus
Witnessing or falling victim to a crime are stressful experiences. Some early research into
eyewitness memory has its theoretical foundations in the effect of various levels of arousal
on performance. Some stress is required for optimal performance at any given task, with
lethargy and overwhelming perturbation each yielding worse performance (e.g. Yerkes &
Dodson, 1908). Deffenbacher et al. (2004) applied Fazey and Hardy’s(1988) catastrophe
model of stress directly to eyewitness identification research, finding that increases in
somatic anxiety result in gradual increases in performance up until the system reaches
breaking point. After this point, increases in anxiety result in an abrupt and discontinuous
drop in performance. In the brain, stress-related glucocorticoid levels modulate memory
performance in a way that mirrors these patterns (Lupien et al., 2007). Perceptually, the
arousal explanation is also supported by the cue-utilisation hypothesis (Easterbrook,
1959), proposing that attention allocates to central rather than peripheral details of a
visual scene under heightened arousal. Weapons brandished during a crime are likely
to increase arousal and stress, narrowing attention to themselves as central features of
the scene. Paying more attention to a weapon means that less attention is allocated to
a perpetrator’s face, which would lie in the periphery, and so may not be encoded as
effectively as when a weapon is absent.
It can be difficult to conclude what may be ‘central’and ‘peripheral’details in a real
case given the variability in stress responses from person-to-person and from event-to-
event (Christianson, 1992). Nonetheless, memory is less accurate for violent events than
for nonviolent variants of the same events (Loftus & Burns, 1982), events wherein
weapons are highly visible yield less accurate memory than events wherein weapons
are less visible (Kramer et al., 1990), and, of most relevance, eyewitnesses are more
likely to recall descriptions for and surrounding the weapon (e.g. the hands of the perpe-
trator) than eyewitnesses who do not see individuals holding threatening objects (Maass
& Köhnken, 1989). All of these findings support the notion that the effect of weapons on
attention may be mediated by a mechanism involving physiological arousal.
Another account of the underlying mechanism of the weapon-focus effect contends
that weapons compete for visual attention since they are unusual stimuli in most contexts
(e.g. Hope & Wright, 2007; Pickel, 1998; Pickel et al., 2008). This novelty-type explanation is
based on early perceptual experiments wherein unusual features of a visual scene, such as
an octopus in a barnyard, attract attention more quickly after onset and for longer intervals
than contextually-relevant aspects, such as a bucket in a barnyard (Loftus & Mackworth,
1978). In theoretical terms, unusual objects are likely to disrupt voluntary control of atten-
tion and increase exogenous (i.e. stimulus-driven) control that may be difficult for a witness
to overcome (Yantis, 2000). In the developed world, weapons are not common objects in
most people’s lives and so, when seen during the course of a crime, attract and hold atten-
tion at the expense of encoding a perpetrator’s face and/or details of the crime.
Eyewitness experiments manipulating the WFE have tested this possibility by examin-
ing the context in which a weapon appears (e.g. a shooting range vs. a baseball park;
2W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Pickel, 1999) and the unusualness of handheld objects themselves (e.g. perpetrators
holding a non-threatening object such as a rubber chicken, or a gun; Erickson et al.,
2014). Such research reveals that weapons in contextually-appropriate environments
do not elicit a WFE, whereas unusual objects held during crimes do. Carlson, Pleasant
et al. (2016) extended the paradigm by presenting participants with scenarios in which
normally non-threatening objects were used as weapons. Contrary to the unusualness
hypothesis, these items did not reduce line-up accuracy to the level observed with
traditional weapons. It remains likely that the degree to which an object is threatening
and unusual both impact on facial memory, albeit in differing ways (Carlson &
Carlson, 2012).
Weapon focus and the search for suspects
Whether through elevating arousal or distracting attention with novelty, weapons dimin-
ish eyewitness memory. What does not appear to be in dispute is that the WFE is greater
for recall than for facial identification (Fawcett et al., 2013; Kocab & Sporer, 2016). This
result presents a forensically relevant problem that we investigate in the current study.
Eliciting a description of a criminal event and its perpetrator during an interview relies
upon verbal recall. Investigators rely on these accurate descriptions when searching for
suspects (e.g. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999; Wells et al.,
2020), and therefore a weapon’s greatest effect in real cases may come before the
police have even located a potential suspect for a witness to identify. This observation
is particularly relevant to the current work as witnesses engage in both face recall and
face recognition processes for the construction of facial composites.
Facial-composite images
When a perpetrator of a crime is not known, the police may ask witnesses to construct a
facial composite of the perpetrator’s face, the result of which is an image used as a refer-
ence for the police and as a tool to generate investigative leads from both the police and
the public. Such images have historically been created by artists specially trained to gen-
erate facial images based on eyewitness reports (e.g. Davies & Little, 1990; Frowd, Carson,
Ness, Richardson, et al., 2005; Lampinen et al., 2012; Laughery & Fowler, 1980). More stan-
dardised methods have used a feature-based ‘kit’where witnesses work with a trained
technician to assemble a composite from individual prefabricated features, commonly
deployed now via a computer interface (e.g. E-FIT; FACES; Identikit 2000; PRO-fit) (e.g.
Davies & Christie, 1982).
More recently, a radically different method has emerged for creating facial composites.
The basic approach is that witnesses repeatedly select whole faces (or whole-face regions)
from arrays of alternatives, with an evolutionary algorithm combining witness choices, to
allow a composite to be ‘evolved’(e.g. Frowd et al., 2004; George et al., 2008; Tredoux
et al., 2006). Also, global aspects of an evolved identity can be changed, such as by alter-
ing face weight, age and health (e.g. Frowd et al., 2010). As such, faces are now created in
line with holistic face perception –that is, perceiving a face as a whole entity –as opposed
to the previous, non-natural approach of constructing the face by recalling and selecting
individual features (for reviews see Frowd, 2011,2017,2021; Frowd, Skelton et al., 2012).
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 3
There are a number of holistic systems, such as EFIT-6 (previously EFIT-V), EvoFIT and ID, all
of which have similar face construction procedures.
The system selected for use in the present study, EvoFIT, has been the subject of
intense research and development (for reviews, see Frowd, 2017,2021) and now
creates composites that are more identifiable than those made by previous systems,
both in the laboratory (e.g. Frowd, Bruce, Ness, et al., 2007; Frowd et al., 2010,2013)
and in tests of actual police investigations (e.g. Frowd et al., 2011; Frowd, Pitchford,
et al., 2012). Therefore, this method shows considerable promise for theoretical investi-
gation and forensic application, including exploration of potential moderators that alter
composite effectiveness.
Composite construction can be influenced by myriad factors that affect eyewitness
memory. To date, research on holistic face systems has considered what Wells (1978)
terms system variables, factors over which law enforcement has direct control when inves-
tigating crimes. Examples include style of interview (Brown et al., 2020; Frowd, Nelson,
et al., 2012; Giannou et al., 2021), use of image-enhancement techniques (Brown et al.,
2019; Davis et al., 2011,2015; Frowd, Skelton, Atherton, Pitchford, et al., 2012; Valentine
et al., 2010), and procedural methods (e.g. Frowd et al., 2015; Frowd, Bruce, Ness, et al.,
2007; Frowd, Park, et al., 2008; Frowd et al., 2009). Theoretically, these techniques improve
the effectiveness of central, internal features of the face, the region including eyes, nose
and mouth that is important for familiar-face recognition (e.g. Ellis et al., 1979)–that is,
for recognition of the composite (Frowd, 2021). However, limited research has examined
the influence of Wells’sestimator variables (Frowd, White et al., 2014; Richardson et
al., 2020), aspects of a crime over which law enforcement has no control. Presence of a
weapon and exposure duration are two widely documented estimator variables in eyewit-
ness research, the focus of the present study.
As discussed, the presence of a weapon during a crime should exert the strongest
effect on recall. A ‘feature’approach to face construction requires a witness to recall
and assemble facial features, and so should be strongly influenced by presence of a
weapon –although, correct naming of these composites is usually low under forensically
relevant conditions, in particular following a long retention interval (a day or more) from
face encoding to construction (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston, et al., 2005; Frowd
et al., 2010), making assessment difficult. However, a holistic system such as EvoFIT
requires minimal description to create its first generation of faces –screens from which
witnesses select faces to begin construction –and correct naming of its composites is
usually good. In a sense, a witness recognises best likenesses, and recognition
memory should be affected by weapon presence to a lesser degree than recall.
However, research does also indicate that face recall is still involved to some extent, par-
ticularly later in the construction process (e.g. Brown et al., 2020; Fodarella et al., 2021;
Frowd, Bruce, Ness, et al., 2007); here, the ability to make fine adjustments to an
evolved face can improve identification, such as by moving the eyes closer together or
making the mouth larger.
Although presence of a weapon has itself not been investigated for a forensically-rel-
evant design in relation to composite likeness, Hancock et al. (2011) examined the degree
of stress at encoding. Half of their face constructors played a psychological action thriller
computer game that included a briefly presented target; the other half took a passive
‘onlooker’stance to the game, viewing the same content and target face. EvoFIT
4W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
composites created by game players were correctly named half as often as those con-
structed by passive observers. The authors suggested that elevated state anxiety for
the players at encoding had a large negative impact on accurate recall and recognition
required for effective composite construction –although, players’divided attention
may also have been involved, resulting in higher cognitive load, or (as suggested
above) use of a less global, less-effective type of face processing (e.g. Frowd, Bruce,
Ness, et al., 2007). The current research manipulates arousal in a more overt weapon-
focus paradigm, as described below.
The current study
The current study manipulated two estimator variables that are known to affect eyewit-
ness memory accuracy: weapon presence and exposure duration. Our aim was to deter-
mine whether these variables would impact identifiability of facial composites.
Additionally, we modelled the forensic situation as far as possible, and so included
target faces that were unfamiliar to the person constructing the composite; a long reten-
tion interval from target encoding to face construction; and a naming task involving par-
ticipants who were familiar with the targets, our main DV for assessing the effectiveness of
the resulting composites. Whatever may be the mechanism, weapon presence was
expected to produce less recognisable composite images by drawing
witnesses’attention away from the face. More specifically, this could be due to the
weapon becoming a more central detail as per the cue-utilisation hypothesis or due to
the unexpected nature of the weapon in an experimental context. In either case, we pre-
dicted that the depiction of internal features would suffer most under the weapon con-
dition, reducing recognition of the composite, and that this effect would be magnified
under a shorter encoding duration.
We present the research as a series of stages, each with its own method and participant
samples, an approach that mirrors established practice for facial-composite construction
and assessment (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston, et al., 2005). Stage 1 comprised
stimulus encoding and facial-composite construction by participants who were unfamiliar
with the target faces. Stage 2 comprised a naming task where participants familiar with
the targets were presented with the composites constructed in Stage 1 and asked to
identify them by name. Stage 3 comprised a perceptual-similarity rating task where ver-
idical images of the target faces were presented alongside the corresponding composites
constructed in Stage 1 and involved another sample of participants who were unfamiliar
with the targets.
Stage 1: face construction
Method
Participants
Forty participants, 36 female, from University of Central Lancashire constructed the
composites; their ages ranged from 18 to 62 (M= 26.8, SD = 10.7) years. Participants
were recruited on the basis of being unfamiliar with the targets: football players compet-
ing at an international level for England or Wales. Staffparticipated voluntarily in response
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 5
to an advert, while students received course credit for participation. Participants were ran-
domly allocated in groups of 10 to each level of the two between-subjects factors: Encod-
ing duration and Presence of knife.
Design
Participants each constructed a single composite face, and so the design was between-
subjects for Presence of knife (absent vs. present) and Encoding duration (10 s vs. 30 s).
In an attempt to maximise the chance of observing a forensically relevant effect,
should one exist, we opted for these target exposure durations as they are not only plaus-
ible in the real world, but also because they produced the strongest weapon-focus effect
in the Fawcett et al. (2013) meta-analysis (based on their ‘intermediate’duration category
from 10 s to 1 min).
Materials
Target faces were selected to be unfamiliar to participants who constructed the compo-
sites but familiar to those who would later name them. This objective was achieved with
use of target photographs of 10 different male footballers who play at international level
for England or Wales. For face construction, participants were recruited on the basis of not
following this sport, whereas football fans were sought for composite naming. A colour
photograph for each player was located on the Internet; all were of good quality, with
photographic subjects presented clean-shaven, facing the camera and without glasses.
Although most eyewitness research investigating the weapon-focus effect has employed
simulated crime videos or slide presentations to maximise ecological validity when
measuring dependent variables directly relating to memory (i.e. recall and identifi-
cation/recognition), it is more common in composite construction research to utilise
still images at the initial encoding phase as composite construction research often exam-
ines system variables (e.g. interviewing, construction methodology). This suggestion is
supported by research which indicates that static and moving images of targets at encod-
ing produce overall equivalent results (Frowd et al., 2015). Static images have also been
used to investigate system variables in eyewitness research (e.g. Wooten et al., 2020).
Target photographs were each printed in the centre of a size A4 page to dimensions of
approximately 8 cm (wide) ×10 cm (high), for participants to view and then to construct
in the weapon-absent condition of the experiment. For presentation in the weapon-
present condition, these targets were presented on top of a photograph of a clip-point
knife pointed outwards (i.e. towards the participant) to simulate a threatening pose
(see example, Figure 1). The knife was presented in colour to dimensions of 8 cm
(wide) × 5.6 cm (high). This stimulus format was chosen as it mirrors the usual presen-
tation of target images at encoding, as mentioned above, but also because of the
unique challenge of obtaining a suitable number of images that depicted a target identity
holding a threatening object.
EvoFIT version 1.6 was used to construct the composite faces.
Procedure
Following approval of ethics from the study’s institution, participants were tested indivi-
dually. They were randomly assigned, with equal sampling, to the two between-subjects
factors of Encoding duration (10 s vs. 30 s) and Presence of knife (absent vs. present).
6W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Participants were given the general briefing that they might be shown a picture of a
threatening weapon and would be involved in a two-part experiment involving a compu-
ter-based task. According to assignment, they were shown one of 10 target photographs
(without replacement) first to briefly look at, and report whether the face was familiar. On
two occasions, the participant reported that the identity was familiar and so another
face was selected randomly and shown to these participants to briefly look at (which
was then reported to be unfamiliar). Familiarity checks complete, participants then
viewed the face alone or paired with the knife, for either 10 or 30 s, according to condition
assignment.
Participants returned to the laboratory 20–28 h later. They were informed that they
would recall the target face and any accompanying object seen on the previous day,
and then construct a composite using EvoFIT. The procedure for carrying out the face
recall interview and EvoFIT face construction is fairly involved and is described in detail
in Fodarella et al. (2015). In brief, using cognitive interviewing techniques, participants
were invited to think back to the time when the target had been seen, visualise the
face and recall it in as much detail as possible, in their own time, without guessing and
without prompts from the experimenter.
The experimenter started EvoFIT and participants chose a database for creating the
face, selecting an appropriate age range to match the previously-seen target. Next,
Figure 1. Example of the type of stimuli used in the weapon-present conditions in the experiment;
actual materials cannot be presented here due to copyright. The footballer (Adam Lallana) and
knife were obtained from Wikimedia Commons (2021). In the weapon-absent conditions of the exper-
iment, the same facial photograph was shown (to different participants) without the weapon being
presented.
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 7
participants were shown arrays of internal features faces (revealing the region around the
eyes, brows, nose and mouth) and asked to select items with the best resemblance to the
target face, focussing on the region around the eyes. Participants were asked to select for
smooth faces,facial texture and overall match. This procedure (for smooth, texture and
overall match) was repeated for a second cycle through the system, with selected faces
being combined to evolve a face. Participants were then invited to improve the likeness
using ‘holistic’tools that changed age, weight, attractiveness and seven other overall
properties of the face. During this stage, participants were asked to focus on the face
as a whole rather than on the upper half. Next, participants were asked to select the
best matching external features (hair, forehead, ears and neck), with these outer features
shown on the constructed internal features. Finally, participants were given the opportu-
nity to alter the size and position of individual features using a ‘shape’tool and enhance
the face again, if necessary, using holistic tools (followed by any further changes made
using the shape tool). When participants reported that the best likeness had been
achieved, the face was saved to disk as the composite.
Face recall and face construction were self-paced procedures. Ten composites were
produced in each of the four individual conditions of the experiment, a total of 40
composites. The procedure took around 45 min per participant, including debriefing.
Stage 2: composite face naming
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited on the basis of being familiar with footballers who play at
international level for England or Wales. They comprised students at the University of
Central Lancashire, for course credit, and volunteer visitors at a local library in Cumbria,
UK. There were 40 participants in total, 2 female, and their age ranged from 22 to 69
(M= 31.2, SD = 9.9) years. An additional six people were recruited to replace participants
who did not meet the a priori rule of correctly naming at least 80% of the target pictures,
as described below, to give this sample. Ten participants were allocated to each level of
the two between-subject factors: Encoding duration and Presence of knife. This sample
size (along with a similar sample size at face construction) is known to be able to
Figure 2. Composites of footballer Adam Lallana. They were constructed by a different person after (a)
10 s encoding duration without knife present, (b) 10 s with knife, (c) 30 s without knife and (d) 30 s
with knife.
8W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
detect at least a medium effect size (Frowd, 2021), one that can reveal a forensically-useful
difference, should one exist.
Materials
Materials were the 40 greyscale facial composites created in Stage 1 and the associated
10 target colour photographs, printed on separate pieces of A4 paper to dimensions
of approximately 8 cm (wide) × 10 cm (high). Example composites are presented in
Figure 2.
Design
The design was between-subjects, with each participant asked to name a set of compo-
sites from one of the four individual conditions in the experiment (comprised of two
factors: Encoding duration and Presence of knife). After naming composites, participants
were asked to name the target photographs to check that they were suitably familiar with
the relevant identities. We applied an a priori rule: to be able to correctly name the
majority of composite images, participants should correctly name at least 80% of the
target photographs. If participants correctly named seven or fewer target pictures, as
occurred on six occasions in total, the subsequent participant was presented with the
same set of composites to name (i.e. was assigned to the same experimental condition
as the person who did not meet the a priori rule).
Procedure
Participants were tested individually and the task was self-paced. Participants were told
that composites would depict footballers who play at international level for England
and Wales. Participants were asked to try to name each composite, if possible, or give
a‘don’t know’response. They were randomly allocated with equal sampling to the four
individual conditions comprising the two factors of the experiment. The 10 composites
were presented sequentially for participants to name, followed by the 10 target photo-
graphs, and participants were also asked to name these faces. Each person received a
different random order of presentation of composites and target pictures. The procedure
took around 10 min to complete, including debriefing.
Results
Responses to facial composites and target pictures were scored for accuracy.
1
Responses
were coded as correct and assigned a value of 1 when participants gave the correct iden-
tity, and were coded as incorrect and assigned a value of 0 when a wrong name or a ‘don’t
know’response was given. As participants were included who correctly named
at least 80% of the target pictures, overall familiarity with the identities was very high
(M= 95.5%, SD = 7.5%). For the few cases (N= 18) where a target picture was not correctly
named (by 12 participants, 2–4 times by group), the associated composite also could not
have been named correctly, and so responses to these composite items were removed
prior to analysis.
Correct responses were much lower overall for facial composites than for target pic-
tures (M= 59.3%, SD = 15.3%); this is the usual situation since composites are error-
prone stimuli and therefore tend to not be named accurately. In more detail, 39 of the
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 9
40 composites were correctly named by at least one person; naming of these items (iden-
tities) spanned the entire naming scale, with six composites (all in 30 s encoding) named
at 100%. As can be seen in Table 1, mean correct naming varied little by group except for
encoding at 10 s in the presence of a knife, where, for these composites, correct naming
was markedly lower (see also Table 1,Note).
Individual responses to composite items from participants were analysed using the
regression technique, Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) in SPSS. This approach
models IVs (predictors or fixed effects) in the context of random effects; the random
effects are (i) participants in the naming stage of the experiment and (ii) composite
items (stimuli). The experiment involved two fixed effects, Encoding (coded as 10 =
10 s; 30 = 30 s duration) and Weapon (coded as 0= absent; 1= present), both specified
to have a descending sorting order (see Table 2,Note). The DV was individual participant
responses, coded as above, with the model set to accommodate nominal responses using
a binomial logistic link function.
Table 1. Correct naming of composites by duration of encoding and presence of knife.
Encoding (s) Knife
Absent Present
10 66.3
a
(63/95)
47.4
a,b
(46/97)
30 64.6
(62/96)
69.1
b
(65/94)
Notes: Figures are expressed in percentage and calculated from participant responses in parentheses: summed correct
responses (numerator) and total (correct and incorrect) responses (denominator). Data are presented for composites
for which participants correctly named the relevant target photographs (N= 382 out of 400), leading to a overall
mean of 61.8% correct. In the GLMM analysis of the significant interaction, there were two significant pairwise com-
parisons:
a
p< .005; the mean was greater (for 10 s encoding, knife absent) in six out of the 10 items, with two reversed
and two ties.
b
p< .001; the mean was greater (for 30 s encoding, knife present) in eight out of the 10 items, two
reversed.
Table 2. Model parameters for the interaction effect of weapon presence and encoding duration on
correct composite naming.
Fixed Effects BSE(B)t(378) pExp(B) 95% CI(−) 95% CI(+)
Intercept 0.928 0.50 1.87 .06 2.53 0.95 6.71
Weapon
Present–Absent
Encoding
10 s −1.066 0.35 −3.06 .002 2.90†1.46 5.76
30 s 0.220 0.35 0.63 .53 1.25 0.63 2.47
Encoding
30 s–10 s
Weapon
Absent −0.089 0.34 −0.26 .80 1.09†0.56 2.15
Present 1.196 0.35 3.39 < .001 3.31 1.65 6.62
Notes: Comparisons are presented with reference to the lowest category (underlined); negative values of Bindicate lower
naming with respect to the reference. GLMM [IBM SPSS (Version 28) using the GENLINMIXED procedure (see Appendix)]
final, Model-based full factorial Corrected model [F(3, 378) = 4.86, p= .002]. The model was specified with the lowest
category of categorical predictors as reference (weapon absent; 10 s encoding), and target (DV) and predictors were
sorted in a descending order; the sorting order of predictors was set to ascending to obtain all pairwise comparisons
for the weapon × encoding interaction. Information criteria are based on −2 log likelihood (AICC = 1804.39, BIC =
1808.32). Variance of random effects’intercept for items [1.83, SE = 0.96, Z= 1.89, p= .06, CI (0.65, 5.14)]. †For ease
of interpretation, this effect size and its accompanying CIs are presented as values greater than unity (Osborne,
2017), calculated as Exp(-B); based on Cohen’s (1988) estimates, 1.5 can be considered as a ‘small’effect size, 2.5 as
‘medium’and 4.5 as ‘large’(Sporer & Martschuk, 2014).
10 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Estimation of parameters for GLMM involves linearization-based methods, also known
as the pseudo likelihood approach, in SPSS (Garson, 2019; IBM, 2020), a standard iterative-
fitting method. As the current sample has balanced data and is sufficiently large (by
design), the residual method (e.g. cf. Satterthwaite approx.) was selected as degrees of
freedom for computing tests of significance. Default settings for convergence criteria
were used: parameter convergence with an absolute difference of 1E-6 and a
maximum of 100 iterations for the algorithm’s inner loop. For both fixed and random
effects’models that were conducted, Beta (slope) coefficients (B), standard errors of B
[SE(B)], effect sizes [Exp(B)] and confidence intervals (CI, all reported at 95%) were
checked to be within sensible limits, neither too low nor too high, that might otherwise
indicate an issue with the fit of the model.
The analysis initially assessed the composition of random effects. This assessment fol-
lowed the ‘gold’standard statistical procedure of Barr et al. (2013): for best generalisation,
random effects should comprise the maximum number of terms, as justified by the struc-
ture of the data. For the current Independent Samples design, random effects involved
random intercepts only (n.b., random slopes were not considered as none of the fixed
effects were within-subjects). GLMM were duly conducted for each fixed effects’model,
see below, each of which contained the best combination of random intercepts for par-
ticipants and / or items, with each set of random intercepts included when there was
sufficient variability in the response data to compute a non-zero estimate for this variable.
For the final, full-factorial model, the variability remaining was not sufficient to compute
random intercepts for participants, and so random effects included only random inter-
cepts for items (see Table 1,Note).
The analysis also considered the most appropriate method to compute parameter esti-
mates. There are two methods available in SPSS, a Model-based method and a Robust
method that is sometimes preferable (e.g. when data are noisy). Both methods gave
the same pattern of significant and non-significant differences, but Model-based was
selected for presenting the results in the final model since the resulting standard errors
for coefficients [SE(B)] of the interaction term were substantially lower (cf. Robust), thus
providing a better fit of the data (also, Model-based is more often available (cf. Robust)
in statistical software, and so this choice facilitates replication of results).
A hypothesis-testing (confirmatory) approach was conducted that initially comprised
three models, each specified with different fixed effects (predictors) along with appropri-
ate random effects (as described above). One model contained encoding only and a
second contained weapon only. A third model contained the interaction between
these two fixed effects; as it is standard practice to include individual predictors in a
model that contains their interaction (e.g. Field, 2018), this third model was full factorial.
Based on these results, a final model was then selected as (i) the full-factorial model (if the
interaction was significant); otherwise (ii) a model containing both predictors (if both pre-
dictors were significant); or otherwise (iii) a model with a single significant predictor.
Based on the customary alpha of .1 for regression analyses, the first model was
significant for Encoding [F(1, 380) = 5.13, p= .024], with better naming for the longer
(cf. shorter) encoding; and the second for Weapon [F(1, 380) = 3.20, p= .075], with
better naming when the knife was absent (cf. present). As the interaction between
encoding and weapon was also significant in the third model [F(1, 378) = 6.80, p
= .010], this GLMM was selected as the final model. It emerged without issues: (i)
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 11
there were only a few (N= 7 or 1.8% of total) cases (four in 10 s encoding, no weapon;
and three in 30 s encoding, weapon present) where the standardised (Pearson)
residuals (SR) fell (just) outside 2 SD (SR <−2.7), and (ii) variances by group were
within a reasonable spread both for residual errors (range of σ
2
= 0.61–1.06) and for
predicted probability values (range of σ
2
= 0.06–0.10).
To explore the significant interaction, fixed coefficients were examined in the third
(final) model (Table 2). This analysis indicated that presence (cf. absence) of a knife led
to less-effective composites at 10 s encoding duration (p= .002), but a weapon-focus
effect did not extend to the longer (30 s) encoding time (p= .53). It also revealed that
10 s encoding led to less-effective composites (cf. 30 s) when the weapon was present
at encoding (p< .001), but there was no significant difference for encoding duration
when the weapon was absent (p= .80).
We also assessed erroneous (mistaken) responses given by participants to composites,
an assessment which emulates police investigations where names (‘tips’) turn out to be
incorrect. Naming responses were re-scored (0= no name given, 1= mistaken name)
and cases analysed (i) for which the target identity was known (as above) and (ii) for com-
posites that had not been correctly named. GLMM conducted as above including both
random intercepts were not significant for Presence of weapon [p= .84, Exp(B) = 1.12],
Encoding duration [p= .85, Exp(B) = 1.05] and their interaction in a full model [p= .89,
Exp(B) = 1.23]. Therefore, there is evidence that mistaken names were unaffected by the
two predictors in the experiment.
Stage 3: composite likeness ratings
Method
Participants
The composites were rated for likeness by 20 volunteers, 13 female, with an age range
from 18 to 74 (M= 44.6, SD = 16.3) years. Participants were sampled widely, those living
in the Cumbria area, UK, recruited by word of mouth. They were recruited on the basis
of not following football at an international level in the UK. This is because participants
tend to rate composites harshly if they are familiar with the target identities (Frowd,
2021), reducing experimental power.
Materials
Materials were the composites constructed in Stage 1 and the 10 target photographs, all
printed in the same way as for Stage 2.
Design and procedure
Participants rated the likeness of all 40 composites and so the design was within-subjects
for the two factors of the experiment. Participants were tested individually and the task
was self-paced. They were asked to give a rating of likeness (1 = very poor likeness …7
= very good likeness) for each composite in the presence of its relevant target photo-
graph. All 40 composites were presented sequentially, and participants provided a
rating as requested. The target photographs were then presented sequentially and par-
ticipants asked to attempt to name the relevant footballers. To avoid familiarity effects,
12 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
we planned to exclude any participants who recognised three or more of the targets;
however, no one met this criterion (and so all recruited participants were included in
the sample). Each person received a different random order of presentation for composite
and target pairs. The task was completed in about 20 min, including debriefing.
Results
The analyses followed the same coding scheme for predictors and procedure for composite
naming, except that a multinomial probability distribution and a cumulative logit link func-
tion were used to model the ordinal-type participant data (composite likeness ratings). Par-
ticipant ratings are summarised in Table 3 and indicate minimal differences by group except
that mean rating was somewhat higher at 30 s (cf. 10 s) encoding duration.
GLMM conducted on individual participants’likeness ratings proceeded in the same
way as for composite naming by including random intercepts for both participants and
items. Estimates of variance for both of these random intercepts were able to be com-
puted (cf. items only for naming), the result of which was a single combined model
[F(2, 792) = 4.78, p= .009] that was significant for (i) Encoding duration [SE(B) = 0.13, p
= .010], with higher likeness ratings for the longer (cf. shorter) encoding [Exp(B) = 1.39];
and (ii) Presence of weapon [SE(B) = 0.13, p= .083], with higher likeness ratings when a
weapon was absent (cf. present) [Exp(B) = 1.25]; the full model was not significant for
the interaction between encoding and weapon (p= .11).
Random slopes were then added to the random effects’model by including the same
predictors that were specified as fixed effects. These models did not emerge significant (p
> .29) for either fixed effect on its own or for the interaction in the full-factorial model. This
result suggests that accounting for differences between each participant and between
each item (identity), by including both random intercepts, produced a significant
model of the data, but also including the within-subjects random effects –differences
in the differences between means –by including both random slopes, did not provide
a reliable model that was able to generalise fully to participants and items.
In Table 4, results are presented for the combined model that includes random inter-
cepts for participants, and both random slopes; random intercepts for items was not
included as no variance remained for items following inclusion of the other random
effects. It is apparent that non-significant fixed effects emerged for likeness ratings as
effect sizes [Exp(B)] were small for a study intended to be able to detect a larger,
medium effect size. This outcome would appear to be due to the variable nature of
random slopes, here leading to a three-fold increase in standard errors and a consequen-
tial reduction in statistical power of the tests.
Table 3. Likeness of composites by encoding duration and presence of knife.
Encoding (s) Knife
Absent Present
10 2.74
(0.09)
2.51
(0.09)
30 2.86
(0.10)
2.93
(0.13)
Notes: Rating scale (1 = very poor likeness …7 = very good likeness). Values are expressed using the mean (which gave a
clearer pattern of results cf. median) and, in parentheses, by-participant SE of the mean.
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 13
Discussion
Understanding the role played by weapons on eyewitness memory is important for the
apprehension and reliable conviction of criminals. This experiment examined the effects
of weapon presence and facial encoding duration on the effectiveness of forensic compo-
sites made with EvoFIT, a holistic software system based on an evolutionary algorithm.
Correct naming reduced significantly for composites constructed of target faces paired
with a knife at 10 s encoding (cf. 10 s no knife). This means that a weapon-focus effect
was evident, at least for the shorter encoding duration. This provides a novel extension
of the weapon-focus effect from eyewitness recall and identification to downstream
aspects of the search for criminal suspects. The effect of weapon presence and encoding
duration on the overall appearance of the constructed composites, as assessed by
ratings of likeness, was small and not reliable in a random effects’model that was most gen-
eralisable –that is, when including the best combinationof random intercepts and random
slopes.
To our knowledge, an encoding duration as short as 10 s has not featured in composite
research that closely models the forensic situation and involves composite naming as a
DV. With EvoFIT, as with the other holistic systems (e.g. EFIT-V and ID), constructors
repeatedly select from face arrays to evolve a composite. This process is holistic in
nature, with selection of whole faces or whole-face regions, and has been proposed
(e.g. Frowd et al., 2004) to parallel natural holistic processing of upright, intact faces
(e.g. Richler & Gauthier, 2014). We propose that such a brief encounter is likely to result
in less detailed scrutiny of a target and encoding that is more global in nature, as evi-
denced here by only a small, albeit non-significant (cf. significant in a simpler model),
reduction in ratings of likeness (from 30 to 10 s). This proposal is supported by research
which reveals that methods designed to encourage global face processing, such as asking
constructors to make personality judgments about a face after having described it,
improve face construction for feature and holistic composite systems (e.g. Frowd,
Bruce, Smith, et al., 2008; Frowd, Nelson, et al., 2012; Frowd et al., 2013,2015; Skelton
et al, 2019. Similarly, global procedures applied to finished composites also improve
naming rates (e.g. Frowd, Skelton, Atherton, Pitchford, Hepton, et al., 2012; Frowd,
Jones et al., 2014). Indeed, such procedures can be combined to give excellent results:
in Frowd et al. (2013), with an encoding duration of 30 s and 24 h retention interval,
mean naming for EvoFIT emerged at an astonishing 74% correct.
Table 4. Model parameters for the effects of weapon presence and encoding duration on composite
likeness ratings.
Fixed effects BSE(B)t(792) pExp(B) 95% CI(−) 95% CI(+)
Weapon
Present–Absent −0.254 0.37 −0.68 .50 1.29
a
0.62 2.69
Encoding
30 s–10 s 0.409 0.36 1.14 .25 1.51 0.75 3.04
Notes: Comparisons are presented with reference to the lowest (underlined) category; negative values of Bindicate lower
ratings of likeness with respect to the reference. GEE [IBM SPSS (Version 28) using GENLINMIXED (see Appendix)] in a
Model-based Corrected model [F(2, 792) = 0.89, p= .41] with Threshold for rating values of B: [1=−1.76, 2= 0.01, 3=
1.47, 4= 2.55, 5= 4.06, 6= 6.00]. Sorting order of variables was ascending for target (DV) and descending for the two
predictors. Variance of random effects for (i) participants’intercept [1.43, SE = 0.68], encoding [0.50, SE = 0.22] and
weapon [0.50, SE = 0.22], and (ii) items’encoding [0.30, SE = 0.15] and weapon [0.37, SE = 0.17].
a
See Table 2,Notes.
14 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Although our experiment was not designed to directly test the theoretical explanations
for the weapon-focus effect, our results do permit reasonable speculation. Presence of the
knife at encoding reliably inhibited correct naming at 10 s encoding (cf. no weapon). It is
worth mentioning that, in spite of a warning that a weapon may be seen, the exper-
imenter observed that participants were noticeably shocked by the knife, and so it is poss-
ible that the decrement in correct naming (MD = 18.9%, 10 s encoding) is in part related to
the impact of stress and anxiety, as previously reported by Hancock et al. (2011). There-
fore, our results fit more closely with the arousal hypothesis of the WFE because any unu-
sualness or unexpectedness should have been abated by the (warning) instruction. This
proposal is further supported by similar findings in eyewitness identification (e.g. Loftus
& Burns, 1982; Maass & Köhnken, 1989). For composites, elevated stress at encoding
also presumably interferes with identifiability (Davies, 2009; Hancock et al., 2011), and
in real-world cases, composite constructors may be witnesses averse to the process
due to reliving the trauma and feeling victimised by the individual whose face they are
being asked to construct (Tredoux et al., 2021). However, note that some real-world
victims experience extreme stress at encoding and yet produce a highly accurate likeness
–such as the EvoFIT composite constructed of rapist Asim Javed as part of Operation
Hatton (Frowd, 2017,2021). We also note that, using a design similar to the one presented
here, previous attempts at inducing a WFE with composites have been unsuccessful
(Frowd, 2014), an outcome likely to be the result of the 30 s encoding duration that
has been used (same as the null result found here). Finally, although the accuracy of exter-
nal and internal facial features varies from composite to composite under the various
experimental conditions, the lack of a reliable effect on perceptual similarity (likeness
ratings) between weapon and no weapon conditions implicates no specificeffect on
either of these facial regions. Instead, it is likely that more holistic or structural codes
required for familiar-face recognition (Bruce & Young, 1986; Young & Bruce, 2011) were
disrupted by the presence of weapon. Further research could usefully establish the
general effect of stress and anxiety on facial-composite production through measured
physiology and follow-up surveys, as well as including the presence of a novel /
unusual object.
The implication of theresearchis that a weapon is unlikely to have a measurable effect on
the correct naming of composites when encoding duration is at least 30 s. For a much
shorter duration, 10 s here, a negative effect of weapons would be expected, with a
medium effect size [Exp(B) = 2.9]. The nature of an intermediate duration is unknown, but
presumably somewhere over this range, the impact of weapons becomes negligible (and
could be the focus of future research). This suggestion should be taken in the context of
a real crime, for which one would expect greater attention to a weapon compared to a
person seeing a weapon in a photograph (and so shorter delays may be more impactful
to composite accuracy). Carlson, Young et al. (2016) previously found an effect of shorter
exposure duration (3 s vs. 10 s) on eyewitness recall, but not identification or confidence-
accuracy calibration, in a weapon-focus paradigm. Given that recall is important for compo-
site construction (e.g. Frowd, Bruce, Ness, et al., 2007), we consider the encoding duration
effect a replication and extension of this finding. More generally, given a similar procedure
to construct faces for other holistic systems, an effect of weapons would also be expected. A
similar argument could be made for traditional feature systems (e.g. E-FIT, FACES, Identikit
2000, PRO-fit). However, these types are believed to be based more on recall than
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 15
recognition (e.g. Frowd et al., 2005) and so, as weapons and objects influence recall to a
greater extent than recognition (e.g. Loftus et al., 1987; Steblay, 1992), the effect could be
stronger. We note though that, as feature-based composite accuracy is usually low following
a long retention interval (e.g. Frowd, Carson, Ness, McQuiston, et al., 2005; Frowd et al., 2010,
2015), this proposal may be difficult to verify experimentally given that correct naming is
likely to be suppressed further toward floor-level performance.
Forensic composite images are commissioned to help produce tips from police officers
and members of the public so that an investigation may generate or eliminate suspects as
well as corroborate victim and witness testimony. In some countries (e.g. Australia, UK, US,
South Africa), composites may also be used as evidence in court. The experiment reported
here modelled both aspects of composites as an investigative tool, by incorporating a
naming task (e.g. when police and members of the public familiar with a fugitive may
recognise that person) and a likeness rating task (e.g. when law enforcement officers
may compare composites to suspects they investigate). Since the results reported here
reflect what would appear to be the first formal assessment examining the combined con-
tributions of weapon presence and encoding duration on composite naming accuracy, we
make some tentative practical conclusions.
First, experts making recommendations based on our results should consider them
in a way similar to how all estimator variable research are considered: namely, the
aggregate reduction in composite accuracy due to the presence of weapon may
produce false tips and therefore jeopardise innocent suspects and in turn lead to a
failure to apprehend the actual guilty suspects who can go on to reoffend. That is
not to say that police should not commission composite images for very briefly occur-
ring crimes involving weapons, but that care should be taken when following up leads
in such cases. It is worth mentioning, though, that mistaken names did not vary
reliably in the experiment, and so false leads would appear not to be influenced (at
least with a medium effect) by the presence of weapon or encoding duration. For
the forensically-important measure of correct naming, though, composites constructed
from 10 s encoding in the presence of a weapon still had very good utility for correctly
identifying the target –about 50% correct naming. Also, although correct naming
dropped by about 20% from 30 s to 10 s encoding duration in the presence of a
weapon, naming of composites in the weapon-present condition was still nearly
60% correct overall, similar to mean naming of 56% reported in a recent meta-analysis
of the system (Frowd et al., 2015). It has long been known that convictions should not
be based on eyewitness evidence alone (e.g. Devlin, 1976), and so other evidence is
important to support a reliable conviction later in an investigation (e.g. Greene &
Loftus, 1984; Osborne & Davies, 2013), irrespective of the method used to generate
a suspect in the first place.
Second, further research is needed to explore the various effects of weapons, unusual
objects, arousal, and myriad other estimator variables on composite accuracy, as well as
means of mitigating these effects at the interviewing and face construction stages. For
example, given our current evidence (via likeness ratings) that a weapon’s adverse
effects on naming have a holistic mechanism, a ‘holistic’tool designed to counteract
this effect could conceivably be developed, as has been done for other global aspects
of the face in holistic systems with a view to facilitate naming (Frowd et al., 2010). Also,
composite research must overcome sampling and design limitations consequent to the
16 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
necessities of setting up these sorts of experiments, as previously recommended by Wells
et al. (2005), to overcome failures to find small but potentially consequential effects. While
the current design had good experimental power to be able to detect at least a medium
effect size, to be of practical significance, researchers might like to consider avoiding the
use of celebrity or otherwise well-known faces as targets for constructors, and then exper-
imentally induce familiarity among participants tasked with naming composites, or (to
achieve natural familiarity) consider a cross-site design (e.g. Frowd, Bruce, McIntyre,
et al., 2007). These measures would allow researchers to use larger samples of construc-
tors in accordance with recommendations for heavily powered experimental designs as
well as allow the production of specially tailored stimulus materials including more nat-
uralistic features like those seen in real crimes.
Note
1. These composite naming data as well as ratings of likeness are available from the correspond-
ing author.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
William Blake Erickson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2765-3699
Charity Brown http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9697-4878
Emma Portch http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9008-4142
James M. Lampinen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5854-521X
John E. Marsh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9494-1287
Cristina Fodarella http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5551-3450
Anna Petkovic http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-3482
Louisa Date http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2290-4193
Peter J. B. Hancock http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6025-7068
Charlie D. Frowd http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5082-1259
References
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory
hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language,68(3), 255–278. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Brown, C., Portch, E., Nelson, L., & Frowd, C. D. (2020). Reevaluating the role of verbalization of faces
for composite production: Descriptions of offenders matter!. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied,26(2), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000251
Brown, C., Portch, E., Skelton, F. C., Fodarella, C., Kuivaniemi-Smith, H., Herold, K., Hancock, P. J. B., &
Frowd, C. D. (2019). The impact of external facial features on the construction of facial compo-
sites. Ergonomics,62, 575–592.
Bruce, V., & Young, A. W. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology,77,
305–327.
Carlson, C. A., & Carlson, M. A. (2012). A distinctiveness-driven reversal of the weapon-focus effect.
Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice,8,36–53.
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 17
Carlson, C. A., Pleasant, W. E., Weatherford, D. R., Carlson, M. A., & Bednarz, J. E. (2016). The weapon
focus effect: Testing an extension of the unusualness hypothesis [electronic version]. Applied
Psychology in Criminal Justice,12,87–100.
Carlson, C. A., Young, D. F., Weatherford, D. R., Carlson, M. A., Bednarz, J. E., & Jones, A. R. (2016).
The influence of perpetrator exposure time and weapon presence/timing on eyewitness confi-
dence and accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology,30(6), 898–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.
3275
Christianson, S. Å. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological
Bulletin,112(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.284
Davies, G. M., & Christie, D. (1982). Face recall: An examination of some factors limiting composite
production accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology,67(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.67.1.103
Davies, G. M., & Little, M. (1990). Drawing on memory: Exploring the expertise of a police artist.
Medical Science and the Law,30(4), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/106002809003000412
Davies, S. (2009). The effects of stress levels on the construction of facial composites. Diffusion,2.
http://atp.uclan.ac.uk/buddypress/diffusion/?p= 1763
Davis, J. P., Simmons, S., Sulley, L., Solomon, C., & Gibson, S. (2015). An evaluation of post-production
facial composite enhancement techniques. Journal of Forensic Practice,17(4), 307–318. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JFP-08-2015-0042
Davis, J. P., Sulley, L., Solomon, C., & Gibson, S. (2011). A comparison of individual and morphed facial
composites created using different systems. In G. Howells, K. Sirlantzis, A. Stoica, T. Huntsberger,
& A. T. Arslan (Eds.), 2010 IEEE international conference on emerging security technologies (pp.
56–60). IEEE.
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of
the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior,28(6), 687–706.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
Devlin, P. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental
Committee on evidence of identification in criminal cases. HMSO.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.
Psychological Review,66(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707
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(4),
431–439. https://doi.org/10.1068/p080431
Erickson, W. B., Lampinen, J. M., & Leding, J. K. (2014). The weapon focus effect in target present and
target absent lineups: The roles of threat, novelty and timing. Applied Cognitive Psychology,28(3),
349–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3005
Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic
review of the ‘weapon focus’literature. Psychology, Crime & Law,19(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325
Fazey, J. A., & Hardy, L. (1988). The inverted-U hypothesis: A catastrophe for sport psychology (British
Association for sports Sciences Monograph No. 1). National Coaching Foundation.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). Sage.
Fodarella, C., Kuivaniemi-Smith, H., Gawrylowicz, J., & Frowd, C. D. (2015). Forensic procedures for
facial-composite construction. Journal of Forensic Practice,17(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JFP-10-2014-0033
Fodarella, C., Marsh, J. E., Chu, S., Athwal-Kooner, P., Jones, H., Skelton, F. C., Wood, E., Jackson, E., &
Frowd, C. D. (2021). The importance of detailed context reinstatement for the production of
identifiable composite faces from memory. Visual Cognition,29(3), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13506285.2021.1890292
Frowd, C. D. (2011). Eyewitnesses and the use and application of cognitive theory. In G. Davey (Ed.),
Introduction to applied psychology (pp. 267–289). BPS Wiley-Blackwell.
Frowd, C. D. (2014, April 30). The impact of weapons and unusual objects on face recall and com-
posite construction. Symposium: Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Distraction, University of
Central Lancashire.
18 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Frowd, C. D. (2017). Facial composite systems: Production of an identifiable face. In M. Bindemann &
A. Megreya (Eds.), Face processing: Systems, disorders and cultural differences (pp. 55–86). Nova
Science.
Frowd, C. D. (2021). Forensic facial composites. In M. Toglia, A. Smith, & J. M.
Lampinen (Eds.), Methods, measures, and theories in forensic facial-recognition (pp. 34–64).
Taylor and Francis.
Frowd, C. D., Bruce, V., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2007). The relative importance of external and
internal features of facial composites. British Journal of Psychology,98(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/
10.1348/000712606X104481
Frowd, C. D., Bruce, V., Ness, H., Bowie, L., Thomson-Bogner, C., Paterson, J., McIntyre, A., & Hancock,
P. J. B. (2007). Parallel approaches to composite production. Ergonomics,50(4), 562–585. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00140130601154855
Frowd, C. D., Bruce, V., Pitchford, M., Gannon, C., Robinson, M., Tredoux, C., Park, J., McIntyre, A., &
Hancock, P. J. B. (2009). Evolving the face of a criminal: How to search a face space. Soft
Computing,14(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-008-0391-z
Frowd, C. D., Bruce, V., Smith, A., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2008). Improving the quality of facial composites
using a holistic cognitive interview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,14(3), 276–287.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.276
Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., McQuiston, D., Richardson, J., Baldwin, H., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2005).
Contemporary composite techniques: The impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Legal &
Criminological Psychology,10(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15358
Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., McLanaghan, S., & Hancock, P. J. B.
(2005). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime & Law,
11(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634313
Frowd, C. D., Erickson, W. B., Lampinen, J. L., Skelton, F. C., McIntyre, A. H., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2015). A
decade of evolving composite techniques: Regression- and meta-analysis. Journal of Forensic
Practice,17(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-08-2014-0025
Frowd, C. D., Hancock, P. J., Bruce, V., Skelton, F. C., Atherton, C., & Nelson, L. (2011). Catching more
offenders with EvoFIT facial composites: Lab research and police field trials. Global Journal of
Human-Social Science Research,11,35–46.
Frowd, C. D., Hancock, P. J., & Carson, D. (2004). EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging tech-
nique for creating composites. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP),1(1), 19–39. https://
doi.org/10.1145/1008722.1008725
Frowd, C. D., Jones, S., Fodarella, C., Skelton, F. C., Fields, S., Williams, A., Marsh, J., Thorley, R., Nelson,
L., Greenwood, L., Date, L., Kearley, K., McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2014). Configural and fea-
tural information in facial-composite images. Science & Justice,54(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scijus.2013.11.001
Frowd, C. D., Nelson, L., Skelton, F. C., Noyce, R., Atkins, R., Heard, P., Morgan, D., Fields, S., Henry, J.,
McIntyre, A., & Hancock, P. J. (2012). Interviewing techniques for Darwinian facial-composite
systems. Applied Cognitive Psychology,26(4), 576–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2829
Frowd, C. D., Park, J., McIntyre, A., Bruce, V., Pitchford, M., Fields, S., Kenirons, M., & Hancock, P. J. B.
(2008). Effecting an improvement to the fitness function. How to evolve a more identifiable face.
In A. Stoica, T. Arslan, D. Howard, T. Higuchi, & A. El-Rayis (Eds.), 2008 ECSIS symposium on bio-
inspired, learning, and intelligent systems for security (pp. 3–10). CPS.
Frowd, C. D., Pitchford, M., Bruce, V., Jackson, S., Hepton, G., Greenall, M., McIntyre, A., & Hancock,
P. J. B. (2010). The psychology of face construction: Giving evolution a helping hand. Applied
Cognitive Psychology,25(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1662
Frowd, C. D., Pitchford, M., Skelton, F. C., Petkovic, A., Prosser, C., & Coates, B. (2012). Catching even
more offenders with EvoFIT facial composites. In A. Stoica, D. Zarzhitsky, G. Howells, C. Frowd, K.
McDonald-Maier, A. Erdogan, & T. Arslan (Eds.), IEEE Proceedings of 2012 third international confer-
ence on emerging security technologies (pp. 20–26). IEEE.
Frowd, C. D., Skelton, F. C., Atherton, C., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2012). Evolving an identifiable face of a
criminal. The Psychologist,25, 116–119.
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 19
Frowd, C. D., Skelton, F. C., Atherton, C., Pitchford, M., Bruce, V., Atkins, R., Gannon, C., Ross, D.,
Young, F., Nelson, L., Hepton, G., McIntyre, A. H., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2012). Understanding the
multi-frame caricature advantage for recognising facial composites. Visual Cognition,20(10),
1215–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.743936
Frowd, C. D., Skelton, F. C., Atherton, C., Pitchford, M., Hepton, G., Holden, L., McIntyre, A., & Hancock,
P. J. B. (2012). Recovering faces from memory: The distracting influence of external facial features.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,18(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027393
Frowd, C. D., Skelton, F. C., Hepton, G., Holden, L., Minahil, S., Pitchford, M., McIntyre, A., Brown, C., &
Hancock, P. J. B. (2013). Whole-face procedures for recovering facial images from memory. Science
& Justice,53(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.004
Frowd, C. D., White, D., Kemp, R. I., Jenkins, R., Nawaz, K. (2014). Constructing faces from memory: the
impact of image likeness and prototypical representations. Journal of Forensic Practice,16, 243–
256.
Garson, G. D. (2019). Hierarchical linear modeling: Guide and applications multilevel modeling in
STATA®, IBM® SPSS®, SAS®, R, & HLM™. SAGE Publications, Inc.
George, B., Gibson, S. J., Maylin, M. I., & Solomon, C. J. (2008). EFIT-V: Interactive evolutionary strategy
for the construction of photo-realistic facial composites. In Proceedings of the 10th annual confer-
ence on genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 1485–1490). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/
1389095.1389384
Giannou, K., Frowd, C. D., Taylor, J. R., & Lander, K. (2021). Mindfulness in Face Recognition:
Embedding mindfulness instructions in the face-composite construction process. Applied
Cognitive Psychology,35, 999–1010.
Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Solving the eyewitness problem. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,2(4),
395–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370020406
Hancock, P. J. B., Burke, K., & Frowd, C. D. (2011). Testing facial composite construction under witness
stress. International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology,3,65–71.
Hope, L., & Wright, D. (2007). Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus
effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology,21(7), 951–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1307
IBM. (2020). SPSS modeler algorithms guide. IBM Corporation.
Kocab, K., & Sporer, S. L. (2016). The weapon focus effect for person identifications and descriptions:
A meta-analysis. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law, 1 (pp. 71–-
117). Springer International Publishing. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_3
Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory.
Law and Human Behavior,14(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062971
Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., & Cling, A. D. (2012). The psychology of eyewitness identification.NY
Psychology Press.
Laughery, K., & Fowler, R. (1980). Sketch artist and identikit procedures for generating facial images.
Journal of Applied Psychology,65(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.3.307
Loftus, E. F., & Burns, T. E. (1982). Mental shock can produce retrograde amnesia. Memory &
Cognition,10(4), 318–323. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202423
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. Law and Human
Behavior,11(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044839
Loftus, G. R., & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture
viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,4(4), 565–572.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.565
Lupien, S. J., Maheu, F., Tu, M., Fiocco, A., & Schramek, T. E. (2007). The effects of stress and stress
hormones on human cognition. Implications for the Field of Brain and Cognition,65(3), 209–
237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2007.02.007
Maass, A., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Eyewitness identification: Simulating the ‘weapon effect’.Law and
Human Behavior,13(4), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056411
Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2013). Eyewitness identifications are affected by stereotypes about a
suspect’s level of perceived stereotypicality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,16(4), 488–
504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212454927
20 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
Osborne, J. W. (2017). Ch. 5: Simple Linear models With categorical dependent variables: Binary
logistic regression. In Regression & Linear Modeling: Best practices and modern methods.https://
doi.org/10.4135/9781071802724
Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus”.Memory (Hove,
England),6(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/741942361
Pickel, K. L. (1999). The influence of context on the “weapon focus”effect. Law and Human Behavior,
23(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022356431375
Pickel, K. L., Narter, D. B., Jameson, M. M., & Lenhardt, T. T. (2008). The weapon focus effect in
child eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law,14(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10683160701391307
Richardson, B., Brown, C., Heard, P., Pitchford, M., Portch, E., Lander, K., Marsh, J. E., Bell, R., Fodarella,
C., Worthington, M., Ellison, L., Charters, P., Green, D., Minahil, S., & Frowd, C. D. (2020). The advan-
tage of low and medium attractiveness for facial composite production from modern forensic
systems. Journal of Applied Memory and Cognition,9, 381–395.
Richler, J. J., & Gauthier, I. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of holistic face processing.
Psychological Bulletin,140(5), 1281–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037004
Skelton, F. C., Frowd, C. D., Hancock, P. J. B., Jones, H. S., Jones, B. C., Fodarella, C., Battersby, K., &
Logan, K. (2019). Constructing identifiable composite faces: The importance of cognitive align-
ment of interview and construction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,26.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000257.
Sporer, S. L., & Martschuk, N. (2014). The reliability of eyewitness identifications by the elderly: An
evidence-based review. In M. P. Toglia, D. F. Ross, J. Pozzulo, & E. Pica (Eds.), The elderly eyewitness
in court (pp. 3–37). Psychology Press.
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior,
16, 413–424.
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enfor-
cement [booklet]. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud:
An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony:
Current trends and developments (pp. 144–160). Cambridge University Press.
Tredoux, C., Nunez, D., Oxtoby, O., & Prag, B. (2006). An evaluation of ID: An eigenface based con-
struction system. South African Computer Journal,37,90–97.
Tredoux, C. G., Sporer, S. L., Vredeveldt, A., Kempen, K., & Nortje, A. (2021). Does constructing a facial
composite affect eyewitness memory? A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of
Experimental Criminology,17(4), 713–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09432-z
Valentine, T., Davis, J. P., Thorner, K., Solomon, C., & Gibson, S. (2010). Evolving and combining facial
composites: Between-witness and within-witness morphs compared. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied,16(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018801
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that
predict the outcome of real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology,17(8), 969–993. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.939
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36(12), 1546–1557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.36.12.1546
Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identifi-
cation performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,11(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1076-898X.11.3.147
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and
procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evi-
dence. Law and Human Behavior,44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
Wikimedia Commons. (2021). Photograph of Adam Lallana,https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Adam_Lallana_Southampton_FC_Manchester_United_2012%2C13.
png). CC SA 3.0. Knife from .22 LR gun knife with revolving round magazine inside the handle,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/.22_LR_knife_gun_combat_ready.png
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME & LAW 21
Wooten, A. R., Carlson, C. A., Lockamyeir,R. F., Carlson, M.A., Jones, A. R., Dias, J. L., & Hemby,J. A. (2020).
The number of fillers may not matter as long as they all match the description: The effect of simul-
taneous lineup size on eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology,34,590–604.
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S.
Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 73–103). MIT Press.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-for-
mation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology,18(5), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.
1002/cne.920180503
Young, A. W., & Bruce, V. (2011). Understanding person perception. British Journal of Psychology,102
(4), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02045.x
Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied
Psychology,71(2), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.291
Appendix
SPSS GLMM Syntax for Correct Composite Naming: Full-factorial, Model-based Covariance Structure.
The DV is hits, and the random effects are random intercepts for items (itm); fixed effects (predictors)
are encoding and weapon. In practice, a GLMM model with random intercepts for participants (ss)
was created initially using SPSS dialogs; this model was then pasted into the Syntax editor, to
allow two RANDOM statements to be included, one for random intercepts for items (itm) and
one for random intercepts for participants (ss). (Although, in this case, as described in the paper,
random intercepts for participants (ss) were not included in the final model shown here.)
GENLINMIXED
/DATA_STRUCTURE SUBJECTS=itm*ss
/FIELDS TARGET=hits TRIALS=NONE OFFSET=NONE
/TARGET_OPTIONS DISTRIBUTION=BINOMIAL LINK=LOGIT
/FIXED EFFECTS=encoding*weapon encoding weapon USE_INTERCEPT=TRUE
/RANDOM USE_INTERCEPT=TRUE SUBJECTS=itm COVARIANCE_TYPE=VARIANCE_COMPONENTS SOLUTION=FALSE
/BUILD_OPTIONS TARGET_CATEGORY_ORDER=DESCENDING INPUTS_CATEGORY_ORDER=DESCENDING
MAX_ITERATIONS=100 CONFIDENCE_LEVEL=95 DF_METHOD=RESIDUAL COVB=MODEL PCONVERGE=0.000001
(ABSOLUTE) SCORING=0 SINGULAR=0.000000000001
/EMMEANS_OPTIONS SCALE=ORIGINAL PADJUST=LSD.
SPSS GLMM Syntax for Composite Likeness Ratings for a combined model containing encoding and
weapon: Model-based Covariance Structure. The DV is rating, and the random effects are random
intercepts for participants (ss) and random slopes for both predictors; fixed effects (predictors)
are encoding and weapon. The same procedure as described above was used to obtain two
RANDOM statements, in this case including both intercepts and slopes, for both participants (ss)
and items (itm). (Random intercepts for items (itm) were not included in this final model.)
GENLINMIXED
/DATA_STRUCTURE SUBJECTS=itm*ss
/FIELDS TARGET=rating TRIALS=NONE OFFSET=NONE
/TARGET_OPTIONS DISTRIBUTION=MULTINOMIAL LINK=LOGIT
/FIXED EFFECTS=encoding weapon USE_INTERCEPT=TRUE
/RANDOM EFFECTS=encoding weapon USE_INTERCEPT=TRUE SUBJECTS=ss
COVARIANCE_TYPE=VARIANCE_COMPONENTS
/RANDOM EFFECTS=encoding weapon USE_INTERCEPT=FALSE SUBJECTS=itm
COVARIANCE_TYPE=VARIANCE_COMPONENTS
SOLUTION=FALSE
/BUILD_OPTIONS TARGET_CATEGORY_ORDER=ASCENDING INPUTS_CATEGORY_ORDER=DESCENDING
MAX_ITERATIONS=100 CONFIDENCE_LEVEL=95 DF_METHOD=RESIDUAL COVB=MODEL PCONVERGE=0.000001
(ABSOLUTE)
SCORING=0 SINGULAR=0.000000000001
/EMMEANS_OPTIONS SCALE=ORIGINAL PADJUST=LSD.
22 W. B. ERICKSON ET AL.
