Content uploaded by Annelies Vredeveldt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annelies Vredeveldt on Jun 30, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Composite communication: how dissemination of facial
composites in the media affects police investigations
Annelies Vredeveldt1and Colin Getty Tredoux2
1
Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-
Holland, The Netherlands and
2
Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch,
Western Cape, South Africa
Corresponding author: Annelies Vredeveldt, email: a.vredeveldt@vu.nl
(Received 3 May 2022; accepted 6 May 2022)
Abstract
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 dif-
ficulty 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.
Keywords: Facial composites; Eyewitness memory; News reports; Social media; Face recognition;
Police procedures; Cognitive psychology; Legal psychology
When investigating a crime, the police may ask eyewitnesses to create a visual likeness of
the perpetrator, also known as a ‘facial composite’. To aid in the search for suspects, this
composite will often be published in newspaper articles, television shows such as
America’s Most Wanted, and on social media, through posts on Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram, among others. When a suspect is found, the eyewitness who created the com-
posite, as well as other eyewitnesses, may be asked to identify the suspect from a line-up.
In this article, we examine how the dissemination of facial composites in the media affects
police investigations.
We often search for people whose whereabouts we do not know, relying on the exten-
sive reach of print, television, and digital media to help us find them. Sometimes the
search is for people who are suspected of crimes, but we also search for those who
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use,
distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Memory, Mind & Media (2022), 1, e10, 1–16
doi:10.1017/mem.2022.4
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
have gone missing, or those whose bodily remains are too decomposed to identify. In the
USA, for instance, more than half a million fugitives were sought by police in the year
1999 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1999). A variety of personal identifiers can be
used in such searches, including physical and behavioural descriptions, recent or old
photographs of the wanted person –which are sometimes ‘age-progressed’–and facial
composite likenesses that have been created by witnesses who saw or know the wanted
person. By publishing personal identifiers, we hope that members of the public who rec-
ognise wanted persons will contact the relevant authorities with information about their
whereabouts. This practice dates back several centuries, at least to 16th century Spain,
where inquisitors would circulate depictions of escaped prisoners on linen cloth
(Groebner 2007, p. 197), and to the so-called Wanted poster widely used in the western
states of 19th century America.
In the 20th and early 21st centuries, the search for wanted persons has relied on mass-
circulated print and television media, especially through television shows like Wanted
(CBS, USA, 1955–1956), Aktenzeichen XY …ungelöst (ZDF, Germany, 1967–now), Crimewatch
(BBC, UK, 1984–2017), America’s Most Wanted (1988–2011; 2021–now), and many similar
programmes in other countries. Viewership of these programmes is often extensive, peak-
ing at 14 million per week in the UK for Crimewatch, 20 million per week in Germany for
Aktenzeichen XY …ungelöst, and over 20 million per week for America’s Most Wanted. More
significantly, claims are often made for the effectiveness of these police–media collabora-
tions: an article in Variety magazine in 2021 claimed that America’s Most Wanted had led to
1187 ‘captures’since the advent of the show in 1988 (Turchiano 2021). A formal statistical
analysis of the efficacy of America’s Most Wanted by Miles (2005) drew the conclusions that
broadcasting a fugitive’s profile raised the apprehension hazard sevenfold and shortened
fugitive time by 25 per cent.
Digital distribution of person identifiers promises an even greater reach. In recent
years, law enforcement has relied heavily on social media to search for and spread infor-
mation about unsolved crimes (eg, in the USA, NCJRS 2013; Canada, O’Connor 2017; and
Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, Rønn et al 2020). Furthermore, a phenomenon called
‘websleuthing’has emerged (Yardley et al 2018), which involves citizen detectives con-
ducting elaborate amateur online investigations to help law enforcement solve crimes,
for example, through ‘Facebook identifications’(Brice 2013). On a smaller scale, eyewit-
nesses to crimes may search social media to see if they can find the perpetrator
(Elphick et al 2021; Havard et al 2021). If such a social media search leads them to a person
whom they recognise –rightly or wrongly –as the person who committed the crime,
exposure to photos of this person is likely to alter the eyewitness’s original memory
for the perpetrator, as we will explain in further detail later in this chapter.
It seems clear that the well-established police–media collaboration in searching for
wanted persons has largely positive effects for societies (Miles 2005), but there are also
dangers. One danger in particular concerns the use of facial composites when searching
for wanted people. In some cases, this may lead to the arrest of an innocent person who
happens to resemble the composite. This happened to Kirk Bloodsworth, an American
military veteran, whose innocence was proven through DNA analysis after he had spent
9 years of his life in prison. Bloodsworth became a suspect because a composite that
the police had released to the media depicted a person who looked like him.
Bloodsworth was not able to provide an adequate alibi for his whereabouts at the time
of the murder of a young girl, and furthermore, witnesses identified him in a line-up.
He was sentenced to death for the murder at his first trial, which was later commuted
to two life terms (Junkin 2005).
In this article, we first examine how eyewitnesses should be interviewed to gain the
most valuable information for creating a composite, taking into account that they may
2 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
have been exposed to information about the crime in the media –a common occurrence
(as evidenced by the large viewership of Wanted-like programmes described earlier). We
then discuss several different systems used to create composites, the benefits and con-
straints of each, and the associated composite quality. Furthermore, we critically evaluate
how the effectiveness of facial composites has been measured in scientific studies and
propose how we believe it should be measured. We also consider how face-matching dif-
ficulties may hamper the search for suspects using facial composites disseminated in the
media. Next, we review how being exposed to a facial composite in various contexts,
including digital and print media, affects the accuracy of later identifications of the per-
petrator in line-ups and face recognition tasks. Finally, we propose important challenges
for future research, for the implementation of facial composite construction in practice,
and for the optimal dissemination of facial composites, bearing in mind their potential
effects on eyewitness memory.
Interviewing methods
The successful creation of a facial composite depends on the completeness and accuracy of
the description of the perpetrator’s face provided by the witness. Therefore, it is crucial
that the witness is interviewed in a way that facilitates accurate remembering. Decades of
research on investigative interviewing show that the way in which witnesses are inter-
viewed strongly affects the amount and accuracy of the information they provide. The
most widely researched investigative interviewing method is the Cognitive Interview
(CI; Fisher and Geiselman 1992). This method stresses the importance of transferring
control over the interview to the witness, guiding the witness to mentally reinstate the
context of the event, encouraging the witness to report everything about the event in
a free recall without interruptions, asking open questions to follow up on the witness’s
account, and using multiple retrieval strategies to obtain more details from memory.
Meta-analyses have shown that the CI results in much more information reported by
witnesses, without substantively decreasing the accuracy of reports (Köhnken et al
1999; Memon et al 2010).
In the more specific context of facial composite construction, Luu and Geiselman (1993)
found that facial composites made with a CI were of significantly higher quality than com-
posites made with a standard interview, but only if the composites were constructed with
a system that promoted holistic processing. Based on their findings, Koehn et al (1999)
proposed that the CI could be revised in the following two ways to optimally enhance
facial composite generation: (1) emphasising visual rather than verbal processing and
(2) encouraging witnesses to reflect on how they judged the target’s personality while
they were encoding the face. Koehn et al tested the effectiveness of the revised CI com-
pared to a standard police interview but found no significant differences in composite
quality between conditions, likely due to floor effects in their data (all composites were
rated as poor quality).
Frowd et al (2008) continued the investigation of the effects of a holistic CI (H-CI) on
the quality of facial composites (see also Fodarella et al 2015). In the traditional CI con-
dition, participants were instructed to freely recall the appearance of the target in as
much detail as possible and then asked to elaborate on each feature. In the H-CI condition,
participants received an extra instruction after the initial CI: to reflect on the personality
of the target and then judge the face on seven global statements: intelligence, friendliness,
kindness, selfishness, arrogance, distinctiveness, and aggressiveness. Several hours later,
participants constructed a composite. Results showed that the composites constructed
using the H-CI were correctly identified by independent participants more than four
times as often as composites constructed using the CI. Thus, the addition of the H-CI
Memory, Mind & Media 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
instruction substantially improved the quality of facial composites. In subsequent studies,
Skelton et al (2020) found that participants created better facial composites when they
created a composite in the same way as they had recalled the target’s face during the
interview, that is, either holistically (full face) or featurally (internal features first, then
external features). Furthermore, they found that participants interviewed with an H-CI
created better composites than participants interviewed with a CI. Interestingly, the
H-CI was better aligned with internals-first construction, whereas the CI was better
aligned with full-face construction, suggesting that the personality judgments focused
attention on internal features of the face.
Finally, Giannou et al (2021) investigated whether another interviewing method could
improve the quality of facial composites, specifically, mindfulness. First, participants stud-
ied an unfamiliar target face. After 24 h, they constructed a facial composite. Participants
in the experimental condition received mindfulness instructions during the construction
process, while participants in the control condition did not. The mindfulness instructions
encouraged participants to visualise the target’s face and focus on the process. Results
showed that composites constructed in the mindfulness condition were identified accur-
ately more often by independent participants than composites constructed in the control
condition. Thus, adding mindfulness to the construction process helped to create more
identifiable composites.
Another factor to take into account when interviewing witnesses for composite con-
struction is the risk that witnesses have been exposed to potentially misleading informa-
tion about the perpetrator in the media. News reports or messages circulating on social
media often contain details about the perpetrator’s appearance, and these can influence
the witness’s memory through processes of social contagion (Roediger et al 2001)ormemory
conformity (Gabbert et al 2003). For example, Loftus and Greene (1980) found that wit-
nesses exposed to an incorrect feature in someone else’s description of the perpetrator’s
face (ie, that he had a moustache) were later significantly more likely to incorporate that
feature in their descriptions of the perpetrator than a control group. A similar effect may
be expected for composites created after exposure to misleading information about the
perpetrator’s face. An important role for the interviewer is thus to investigate what infor-
mation the witness has been exposed to prior to attending the interview.
In summary, research shows that witnesses who receive the opportunity to freely
recall the face and are instructed to focus on holistic judgments of the face (eg, relating
to personality traits) create better facial composites than witnesses who are simply asked
a series of questions about facial features. Some police interview trainings have incorpo-
rated these findings (eg, in the UK; see Frowd et al 2008), but our experiences with the
police in South Africa and The Netherlands suggest that many police officers are not
aware of these interview methods.
Composite construction systems
A facial composite can be created in many ways. For example, the eyewitness may instruct
an artist to draw the face (composite drawing), the eyewitness may piece together
the composite by selecting different facial features and placing them in a facial outline
(featural systems), or the eyewitness may arrive at a facial likeness by selecting whole
faces that more and more closely approximate the face in their memory (holistic systems).
Perhaps, the earliest method of constructing a face from memory used by police forces
was through assistance by a police sketch artist (see Figure 1 for an example). The artist
would typically have a background and training in portrait art and would interview the
eyewitness, sketching the face in close interaction and discussion with the witness.
Some artists developed particular techniques for doing so, sometimes even developing
4 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
a‘translation language’to facilitate the conversion of witness memory to face compos-
ition. For instance, the witness could be asked to consider the jaw and chin as analogous
in shape to a bicycle seat and could then indicate how wide or curved it was by thinking
about how the seat would look. It is not common nowadays for police forces to use sketch
artists, since they are costly to employ (typically being trained portrait artists), but some
do, and remain convinced of the special abilities portrait artists have (cf. Boylan 2001).
Many police forces introduced mechanical systems for constructing faces in the early-
to mid-20th century (see Figure 1). One system, known as ‘Identikit’, introduced in 1959,
consisted of sketches of facial features that had been copied onto acetate slides, and these
could be placed as overlays to each other when interviewing a witness and constructing a
face. A face could thus be created by overlaying a sketch of a face frame with additional
pre-drawn sketches of eyes, noses, and other face parts, chosen from a large library of
images. An artist could touch up the final image created in this way, removing lines intro-
duced by the overlay of the acetates. A similar system was created by Penry (1970,1971)
but was composed of features that had been sectioned from photographs of faces. Penry
stipulated that no two features should be taken from the same face. A police technician
could interview a witness in much the same way as the original sketch artists had done
and assemble a face, touching it up where needed.
The limitations of early mechanical systems of face composition were widely recognised
in research and practice, and studies consistently showed that facial composites were typ-
ically of poor quality: they were not a good match to the face they were intended to
represent. Many authors reported that facial composites constructed under reasonably
good encoding and retrieval conditions could only be matched at chance levels to the
intended targets (for a review of early research on facial composites, see Davies and
Valentine 2007). The advent of affordable computers and computer software in the 1970s
and 1980s, however, was widely expected to improve the poor resemblance of composites
to their intended targets. Specialised software was introduced for Macintosh computers
(Mac-a-Mug; Shaherazam 1986), as well as IBM/DOS and Microsoft Windows-based compu-
ters (E-FIT, PRO-fit, FACES, Identikit 2000, CompuSketch, and others; cited in Frowd et al
2007). These systems dealt with one of the chief problems the old manual systems had,
namely the difficulty in managing and navigating large libraries of features. A trained oper-
ator could work with a witness and search very large feature spaces quickly and efficiently.
There was also no need to do much manual post-composition editing, as digital editing and
re-sizing made the task much easier. However, empirical evaluations of computerised com-
posite systems did not substantiate the apparent promise of these systems: attempts to cre-
ate faces from memory were usually unsuccessful, although it seemed possible for the first
time to create good resemblances of faces when the witness had the target in full view
(Davies and Valentine 2007; Koehn and Fisher 1997; Kovera et al 1997).
Figure 1. Composites of the same target face created
from memory through interaction with simulated
witnesses. The left panel is a sketch by a police artist
and the right panel is a reconstruction with featural
software.
Memory, Mind & Media 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
The continued exponential growth in computing power led to a more significant
change in the technology underlying composite systems in the late 1990s in the form
of the so-called eigenface statistical models of faces (Gibson et al 2003; Frowd et al
2004; Tredoux et al., 1999,2006). These models and software systems allow for the holistic,
or configural, construction of faces, jettisoning the feature-based methods employed by
earlier systems (see Figure 2). These programmes are essentially applications of the eigen-
face technology developed and reported by Sirovich and Kirby (1987). A sample of high-
resolution face images is collected, and coded in detail for key facial features, in order to
capture two-dimensional shape. The images are then warped into a common reference
shape through bi-linear mapping, and principal component analysis is conducted on
the images and separately on the two-dimensional shapes. Images in the original sample
can be reconstructed through linear combinations of the eigenfaces, and most usefully, so
can images that are not in the sample, but with some degree of reconstruction error. This
property of eigenface models underpins the new holistic facial composite systems: the
face to be reconstructed by a witness has, by definition, a representation in the eigenface
space as a set of coefficients (ie, the weights in the linear combination), and the witness’s
task is to ‘find’these coefficients. In practice, this is achieved through a graphical user
interface that the witness interacts with, either alone or with an operator. Starting
with an initial array of synthetic face images (generated randomly, or from a defined
starting image), the witness selects one or more of the images from the array according
to their overall similarity to the target face, and algorithms generate a new set of face
images based on the selection. This continues until the witness is satisfied with the
reconstruction.
New-generation holistic composites offer promising solutions to some of the vexing
problems with facial composite systems identified in earlier research. In the first place,
they do not require witnesses to work with disembodied features at any point; adjust-
ments are always presented in a facially integrated form. Secondly, they offer the ability
to synthesise faces, generating new faces and/or features, instead of relying on the fea-
tures collected when developing the system. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly,
Figure 2. Typical graphical user
interface of a new-generation com-
posite system (ID, Tredoux et al
2006). The user selects one or
more faces of reasonable similarity
to the perpetrator, and an algorithm
generates new faces based on that
choice.
6 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
they appear to allow the witness to use recognition memory rather than recall memory,
as is often required when interacting with sketch artists or police operators. Empirical
evaluations of new-generation systems suggest that they can help witnesses produce com-
posites that are recognisable likenesses of perpetrators (Tredoux et al 2006;Frowd2017),
with recognition accuracy exceeding 70 per cent in some instances (Frowd et al 2019),
although it should be said that empirical evaluations of the accuracy of the systems
have almost all been conducted by the developers of the systems.
Frowd (2017) reports an interesting set of post-processing manipulations that improve
the recognition of perpetrators from composites. Thus, he reports that ‘dynamic carica-
turing’of composites through a set of steps improves recognition, as does ‘image stretch-
ing’,‘mild Gaussian blur’,‘reduced facial texture’, and ‘horizontal misalignment’.Frowd
speculates that these techniques may ‘conceal inaccuracies in features (as less information
is revealed to the user), to allow holistic information to be more effectively processed by
the cognitive system’(p. 69). The point Frowd makes can be put in a different way. One of
the problems with facial composite creation is that composite systems require witnesses
to make assertions about the entire face, even if they can only remember parts accurately.
It would generally be impossible for a witness to create a composite that was missing a
nose, even if they could not remember any detail about the nose, but nonetheless had
good information about other facial features (see also Kempen 2013). Thus, the composite
may contain some accurate information, and some inaccurate information, and there
seems no way to avoid this problem (but see Kempen 2013).
The effectiveness of facial composites
In the real world, a facial composite can be considered effective if it leads the police to the
perpetrator of the crime. To that end, the composite is distributed in several ways, includ-
ing on community noticeboards and in television, print, and digital media. It is hoped that
a person who knows the perpetrator will recognise the perpetrator from the depiction
and report the possible match to law enforcement. The experimental equivalent of this
is not straightforward. In an experiment, there is no perpetrator on the loose that may
be spotted by someone who has seen the composite created by the witness. Thus, how
does one study whether a composite is effective?
The five methods used most frequently to assess composite quality are as follows: (1)
likeness rating, (2) line-up evaluation, (3) composite matching, (4) mugshot elimination,
and (5) naming. In likeness rating tasks, participant-judges view a composite and the tar-
get it is intended to represent (without knowing this) and rate the similarity of one to the
other. In some variations, the target is paired with foils (ie, faces that the composite is not
intended to represent) to control for a general likeness of the face to other faces. In
line-up evaluation tasks, the composite is shown alongside a target-present or
target-absent line-up, and the participant-judge is asked to select the line-up member
the composite represents. In composite matching tasks, the participant-judge is given
all the composites constructed by witnesses, and the set of photographs showing the tar-
gets. The composites are to be assigned to the corresponding targets, but the participant-
judge is warned that targets need not be represented in any of the composites. In mugshot
elimination tasks, witnesses are presented with the composite sketch and with a large col-
lection of face images (mugshots) and are asked to indicate all those faces that they think
the composite cannot feasibly represent. The measure of interest in this method is the
proportion of faces that cannot be eliminated by the composite (ie, a set-reduction meas-
ure). In composite naming tasks, participant-judges are asked to indicate who (ie, which
individual person) the composite represents. This task can only be used in contexts where
this is feasible. In laboratory experiments, this is typically achieved by getting participant-
Memory, Mind & Media 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
witnesses to construct likenesses of celebrities unknown to them and subsequently asking
participant-judges who do know the celebrities to name the composites. The forensic rele-
vance of this provision is of obvious significance, and Frowd, in particular, has argued that
the naming task should be the ‘gold standard’in composite studies (eg, Frowd 2017).
However, participant-judges typically find the task extremely difficult, and naming
rates are frequently at floor level. A cued naming task is often used as a remedy, which
involves giving judges a list of possible names to match the composite to.
Extant studies have used a variety of techniques, making it difficult to compare results
across studies, or indeed to develop a coherent understanding of factors that may affect
composite quality. Composite quality is sometimes considered as having multiple dimen-
sions (eg, Frowd et al 2006) and other times as being one-dimensional (McNamara 2009).
Moreover, many studies utilise more than one evaluation technique, yielding different
results with different techniques (see, eg, Frowd et al 2005). Different evaluation techni-
ques might differ in both task difficulty and in drawing on different cognitive resources,
both of which might influence the outcome. For example, likeness rating might draw on
in-view feature-based comparison, whereas naming might draw on from memory recog-
nition of a well-encoded face instead.
The assessment of composite quality is also a matter of considerable applied significance,
since much of the research on facial composites has police practice in mind. Another way to
think about effectiveness is to consider alternative methods of reaching the same goal (ie,
leading the police to the perpetrator). A few studies have compared the effectiveness of facial
composites to simply providing a verbal description of the face. Christie and Ellis (1981)
reported that descriptions were more accurate than Photofit composites when accuracy
was assessed using identification and classification tasks. McQuiston-Surrett and Topp
(2008) replicated this finding, reporting that person descriptions were more accurate than
facial composites in their study. Lech and Johnston (2011) found that descriptions seem
more accurate, as measured by recognition of the perpetrator, than even the new-generation
E-FIT-V synthetic system. It seems reasonable to propose, as Christie and Ellis (1981)did,that
the task of realising a visual likeness of a face is dogged by modality-specific interference
between the visual image stored in memory and the visual representation that needs to
be created (as opposed to a verbal description). A finding to consider, though, is reported
by Ness (2003): independent raters who were given both descriptions and composites per-
formed better than those given only descriptions or composites. This was not found in
the original study by Christie and Ellis who had a similar manipulation.
Face matching with composites
Publication of facial composites in the news media often results in a deluge of calls to the
police, particularly if a reward is offered for finding the wanted person. For example,
when a facial composite of the Yorkshire Ripper (see Figure 3) was released in the
Figure 3. Left: a Photofit facial composite of the
Yorkshire Ripper issued by the police in 1979 (Image:
Keystone/Hulton Archive via Getty Images). Right:
photograph of the person who was later convicted
for the crimes, Peter Sutcliffe (Image: Universal
History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty
Images).
8 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
press, the suspect list exploded to over 17000 names. The press officer on the case later
described the influx of tip-offs as ‘100% rubbish’(Hardaker 2019). When a facial composite
is disseminated via the media and the public is asked whether they know the depicted
person, they are essentially asked to match the facial composite to the target’s face.
People’s ability to evaluate whether two different photos of a face depict the same person
(or whether a photo matches the person standing in front of them) has been studied
extensively in ‘face-matching’experiments. If the target is familiar, people are generally
good at face matching (Megreya and Burton 2006; see also Chapman et al 2018, for a
slightly different view). Of course, when the face-matching task involves matching a facial
composite (rather than a photo) to a familiar person, this comes with an additional chal-
lenge: it is not clear to what extent the facial composite actually matches the target.
Moreover, although Frowd’s so-called gold standard for the use of facial composites
assumes that people familiar with the face of wanted person will view the composite,
composites are often also given to police officers and to border authorities who are rela-
tively unfamiliar with the wanted person. It is then hoped that they will be able to match
the composite to the face of the wanted person if the opportunity arises. There is good
reason to suspect that such a task will be experienced as extraordinarily difficult and
will have a low rate of success. This task is more akin to the more typical set-up for face-
matching experiments, which usually involve matching depictions of a person unfamiliar
to the participant. One of the seminal studies in this literature is Bruce et al’s(1999) dem-
onstration that attempts to match a photo of an unfamiliar target face (in full view) to
another photo of the target embedded in an array of 10 faces had error rates of up to
30 per cent (note that guessing would have resulted in 10 per cent accuracy). Since
that study, many other studies have confirmed the high error rate in tasks that resemble
the matching task passport clerks or cashiers often engage in (see Towler et al 2017 for an
overview), that is, matching a photo of an unfamiliar person to an unfamiliar person who
is standing in front of them.
Thus, when a facial composite is disseminated to people who are relatively unfamiliar
with the target, such as police officers and border patrol officers on the look-out for a
wanted person, this constitutes an unfamiliar face-matching task with an image of
unknown resemblance to the target. Given that face matching with an actual photo of
an unfamiliar target is already highly error-prone (cf. Towler et al 2017), and given
that even people who are familiar with the target have extreme difficulty matching a facial
composite to the target (see, eg, Frowd et al 2005), the task of matching a facial composite
to an unfamiliar target seems nigh impossible.
How exposure to composites in the media may affect eyewitness memory
Because the goal of creating a facial composite is to find the suspect, the composite
images are often shared widely through various types of media. This distribution
comes with a potential risk: When an eyewitness is exposed to a facial composite created
by another eyewitness, this may affect their own memory of the perpetrator’s face. Just
like other forms of post-event information (for a review, see Loftus 2005), the facial com-
posite may blend with or even replace the initial memory of the face. In cases of high pub-
lic interest, the facial composite could even become an ‘iconic image’, similar to the iconic
photographs of celebrities discussed by Carbon (2008). In such cases, the iconic image may
become the memory of the person and replace the original memory completely. Consider,
for example, the famous composite sketches of the Yorkshire Ripper (Figure 3) and the
Unabomber (Figure 4), which are seemingly much better known than any actual photo-
graph of the people they portray (also portrayed in Figures 3 and 4). The search for a
person who resembles the iconic image could then result in a wild goose chase.
Memory, Mind & Media 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
In the eyewitness memory literature, when the face of the perpetrator is replaced in
memory by another face (or facial composite) to which the witness was exposed, this is
referred to as unconscious transference (see, eg, Read et al 1990;Rossetal1994a,1994b).
The classic case of unconscious transference, described by Loftus (1976), is that of a
sailor who was mistakenly identified by a ticket agent as the person who had robbed
him. When the ticket agent was later interviewed to find out why he had falsely iden-
tified the sailor, the agent said that the sailor’s face had looked familiar. That was
unsurprising, as the sailor had purchased tickets from the agent several times before
the robbery. It thus seems that the sailor’s face had unconsciously been transferred
to the robber.
A particularly compelling example of unconscious transference is the story about
Donald Thomson, a psychologist who himself became the subject of unconscious transfer-
ence when a victim who was raped just after watching him speak on national television
later accused Thomson of committing the rape (D. M. Thomson 2011, personal communi-
cation). Ironically, Thomson’s television appearance was about memory for faces. He
described his own face and height to illustrate a point about eyewitness identification,
and the rape victim later provided that exact description to the police. The police then
generated a profile of the rapist and released the description and profile to the public.
A few weeks later, Thomson was visited by the police because someone had apparently
told them the profile resembled him. When Thomson told the police that the Deputy
Commissioner of the Police as well as the President of Civil Liberties could confirm his
alibi (ie, appearing on national television around the time of the rape), the officers sneered
‘And I suppose that Jesus Christ was there too!’. Another amusing example of unconscious
transference was reported about the German Crimewatch show Aktenzeichen XY …ungelöst.
In April 2012, one of the re-enactment actors of the show was arrested because one of the
programme’s viewers had spotted him on the street and reported him as the jewel thief
whom the actor had portrayed on an episode some weeks earlier (Gastaldo 2012).
Fortunately, his alternative explanation for the supposed eyewitness identification was suf-
ficiently compelling to quickly resolve the misunderstanding.
The blending or replacement of one face with another can be explained by source mon-
itoring theory (Johnson et al 1993), which suggests that people often confuse the source of
their memories, for example, whether a memorial representation of a face was created
while viewing the target’s face during the event, or while viewing someone else’s compos-
ite after the event. When a facial composite is of high quality (and thus perhaps a better
resemblance than the original memory of the face), this might be beneficial. When a com-
posite is of poor quality, however, this is likely to be harmful. Given that composites are
rarely a good resemblance to the target (eg, Frowd 2017), chances are high that compo-
sites released in the media will be a poorer resemblance to the perpetrator’s face than the
eyewitness’s original memory of the face. If the eyewitness then sees that composite on
social media, a television show, or printed media, that exposure to the composite could
potentially alter their original memory.
Figure 4. Left: Facial composite sketch of the
Unabomber drawn by Jeanne Boylan (Image:
NewsBase/NBBPS via Associated Press). Right: photo-
graph of the person who was later convicted for the
crimes, Ted Kaczynski (Image: Federal Bureau of
Investigation, public domain).
10 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Sporer et al (2020) conducted a critical narrative review of the limited number of stud-
ies to date investigating the effect of viewing someone else’s facial composite on eyewit-
nesses’subsequent recall and recognition of the target’s face. They found no support for
the idea that viewing a high-quality composite benefits subsequent recall of the face, with
the few studies that included this experimental condition finding no effects on facial
recall compared to a no-composite control condition. Based on the limited amount of evi-
dence in this area, Sporer and colleagues do conclude that ‘viewing someone else’s com-
posite, particularly if it is misleading, may harm subsequent memory for the perpetrator,
affecting the recall of specific features as well as identification accuracy’. However, they
also conclude that the negative effects are limited to specific conditions, short-lived,
and relatively easily reversed.
When eyewitnesses create a facial composite themselves, this may also affect their
memory of the perpetrator’s face. On the one hand, the construction of a facial composite
could help the witness to visually rehearse the target’s face and as such strengthen the
memory of the face (see, eg, Meissner and Brigham 2001). On the other hand, composite
construction could interfere with the original memory of the face, much in the same way
or even more so than viewing someone else’s composite does (see, eg, Wells et al 2005).
Wells et al’s finding that facial composite construction impaired subsequent facial identi-
fications received a great deal of attention in the news media and legal reviews. For
example, newspaper headlines such as ‘When crime-fighting tools go bad: Problems
with the face-composite system’(Munger 2006) and assertions such as ‘Not only are facial
composites poor indicators of the likeness of a culprit, they also have the potential to
taint the memory of the eyewitness who helped to create the composite. Findings from
recent studies show that the image of a composite either replaces or blends with the ori-
ginal image in the memory of the eyewitness.’(McNamara 2009, p. 789) painted a rather
catastrophic picture for the use of facial composites in police investigations.
A closer look at the scientific literature as a whole, however, reveals that studies inves-
tigating the effect of composite construction on subsequent facial identification report
conflicting results, with some finding positive effects, some no effects, and some negative
effects (see Tredoux et al 2020 for a review). Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the recent
meta-analysis by Tredoux and colleagues revealed no significant overall effect of compos-
ite construction on line-up identification performance. Furthermore, their analyses found
no heterogeneity in effect sizes (once outliers were removed). Thus, although there are
theoretical reasons to predict that the effects of composite construction might depend
on the quality of encoding, the quality of the facial composite, and whether the perpet-
rator is present or absent in the line-up identification, the current literature does not pro-
vide an adequate basis to test for these potential moderating effects.
The findings of the critical review (Sporer et al 2020) and meta-analysis (Tredoux et al
2020) are surprising in light of the seemingly widespread warnings in the news media (eg,
Munger 2006; Roth 2007) and legal and investigative guidelines (eg, McNamara 2009;
Stoughton Police Department 2019) that viewing or creating facial composites harms
memory. Critical analysis of the available scientific literature reveals that we are not
yet in a position to make solid, evidence-based policy recommendations regarding the
effects of facial composites on subsequent identifications.
Future challenges
As has become clear from this article, research on facial composites has provided valuable
insights but has also raised many questions. In our view, the most important limitation of
previous studies is the general lack of ecological validity. With a few notable exceptions
(eg, Pike et al 2019), studies have typically used unrealistic facial stimuli, short delays,
Memory, Mind & Media 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
inexperienced composite system operators, university students as participants, and
unrepresentative measures of effectiveness. It is questionable whether the findings
from these studies adequately reflect what happens in practice. Future research in this
area should attempt to mimic real-life conditions more closely.
Another challenge for future research is to more systematically investigate factors that
may moderate the effects reported in this article. For example, relatively few studies have
investigated the consistency of composites produced by single witnesses (which is essen-
tially a question of the reliability of composite creation) or by multiple witnesses. In our
experience, police forces often have witnesses work together on a composite. Some stud-
ies have considered creating aggregate composites through image or model morphing (eg,
Bruce et al 2002; Hasel and Wells 2007; Davis et al 2010), but an additional question is
whether witnesses working collaboratively will produce better composites than when
working independently (in line with findings that witnesses can facilitate each other’s
memory; see, eg, Vredeveldt et al 2016,2017,2019). In addition, even though the effects
of viewing or creating a facial composite on subsequent memory are likely to depend in
large part on various factors such as the quality of encoding and the quality of the com-
posite, surprisingly few studies have experimentally manipulated these factors.
Furthermore, in real life, witnesses are likely to encounter a facial composite more
than once, for example, because they re-watch an episode of a television programme
like America’s Most Wanted multiple times or because they share the composite on social
media and engage with commenters. Future research should look into the effects of
such repeated exposure over an extended period of time. Other, more technical questions
that need addressing are outlined in more detail in Frowd (2017) and Frowd et al (2019).
A final important challenge for the future is the incorporation of scientific insights into
police practice. For some questions, such as the effects of facial composite construction on
memory, we do not yet have sufficiently consistent findings to provide a solid foundation
for policy recommendations, yet such recommendations have already been published in
investigative interview manuals, legal regulations, and the popular media. For other ques-
tions, such as the effectiveness of a holistic Cognitive Interview to help witnesses con-
struct better composites, the findings do seem to be consistent enough to inspire
policy recommendations, yet we would dare to bet that most police officers who construct
facial composites around the world have never heard of this type of interview procedure.
We strongly encourage researchers in this field to seek collaborations with local police
agencies to promote the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for the use of facial
composites in police investigations.
Conclusion
Asking an eyewitness to create a facial composite of the perpetrator and then distributing
that composite in the media has the potential to further the police investigation, provided
that the composite actually resembles the perpetrator. To increase the likelihood of a
high-quality composite, investigators should interview eyewitnesses holistically and ask
them about potential exposure to images of the perpetrator in the media. Furthermore,
they should use a composite system that results in high-quality composites, such as the
new-generation holistic composite programmes. Investigators should also be aware of
the risk that other eyewitnesses could be influenced by exposure to the composite,
although research findings on this issue are inconclusive. Unfortunately, the insights
gained from research to date are limited by the lack of ecologically valid studies and
the absence of systematic investigation of potential moderating factors. We believe that
these issues need to be addressed to facilitate the formulation of evidence-based recom-
mendations regarding whether the police should use facial composites at all, and if so,
12 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
how composites should be constructed and distributed to optimise their value for the
investigation and minimise their potential harm to eyewitness memory.
Data availability statement. The data that support this review can be found in the cited published scientific
articles.
Financial support. This work received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
Boylan J (2001) Portraits of Guilt: The Woman Who Profiles the Faces of America’s Deadliest Criminals. New York: Pocket
Star.
Brice R (2013) Social Media ‘Investigators’Tainting Court Evidence. ABC Premium News (Australia), 23 January 2013.
Available at https://advance-lexis-com.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:
57K3-R6K1-F031-X3C1-00000-00&context=1516831.
Bruce V, Henderson Z, Greenwood K, Hancock PJB, Burton AM and Miller P (1999) Verification of face iden-
tities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 5(4), 339–360. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1076-898x.5.4.339.
Bruce V, Ness H, Hancock PJB, Newman C and Rarity J (2002) Four heads are better than one: Combining face
composites yields improvements in face likeness. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5), 894–902. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.894.
Carbon C-C (2008) Famous faces as icons. The illusion of being an expert in the recognition of famous faces.
Perception 37(5), 801–806. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5789.
Chapman AF, Hawkins-Elder H and Susilo T (2018) How robust is familiar face recognition? A repeat detection
study of more than 1000 faces. Royal Society Open Science 5(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170634.
Christie DF and Ellis HD (1981) Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. Journal of Applied
Psychology 66(3), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.358.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1999) Warranting Improvement: Reforming the Arrest Warrant Management
System. Available at https://archive.org/details/warrantingimprov00mass (accessed 21 April, 2022).
Davies GM and Valentine T (2007) Facial composites: Forensic utility and psychological research. In Lindsay RCL,
Ross DF, Read JD and Toglia MP (eds), Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 2. Memory for People. Routledge, 59–83.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315805535.
Davis JP, Sulley L, Solomon C and Gibson S (2010) A comparison of individual and morphed facial composites
created using different systems. In Howells G, Sirlantzis K, Stoica A, Huntsberger T and Arslan AT (eds), 2010
IEEE International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies. IEEE, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/EST.2010.29.
Elphick C, Philpot R, Zhang M, Stuart A, Pike G, Strathie A, Havard C, Walkington Z, Frumkin LA and Levine
M(2021) Digital detectives: Websleuthing reduces eyewitness identification accuracy in police lineups.
Frontiers in Psychology 12.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640513.
Fisher RP and Geiselman RE (1992) Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive
Interview. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Fodarella C, Kuivaniemi-Smith HJ, Gawrylowicz J and Frowd CD (2015) Forensic procedures for facial-
composite construction. The Journal of Forensic Practice 17(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-10-2014-0033.
Frowd CD (2017) Facial composite systems: Production of an identifiable face. In Bindemann M and Megreya A
(eds), Face Processing: Systems, Disorders and Cultural Differences. New York: Nova Science, 55–86.
Frowd CD, Hancock PJB and Carson D (2004) EvoFIT: A holistic, evolutionary facial imaging technique for cre-
ating composites. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 1(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/1008722.1008725.
Frowd CD, Carson D, Ness H, McQuiston-Surrett D, Richardson J, Baldwin H and Hancock P (2005)
Contemporary composite techniques: The impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Legal and
Criminological Psychology 10(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15358.
Frowd CD, Bruce V, McIntyre AH, Ross D, Fields S, Plenderleith Y and Hancock PJB (2006) Implementing hol-
istic dimensions for a facial composite system. Journal of Multimedia 1(3), 42–51.
Frowd CD, McQuiston-Surrett D, Anandaciva S, Ireland CG and Hancock PJB (2007) An evaluation of US systems
for facial composite production. Ergonomics 50(12), 1987–1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701523611.
Frowd CD, Bruce V, Smith AJ and Hancock PJB (2008) Improving the quality of facial composites using a hol-
istic cognitive interview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14(3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1076-898X.14.3.276.
Memory, Mind & Media 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Frowd CD, Portch E, Killeen A, Mullen L, Martin AJ and Hancock PJB (2019) EvoFIT facial composite images: A
detailed assessment of impact on forensic practitioners, police investigators, victims, witnesses, offenders and
the media. In 2019 Eighth International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies (EST). IEEE, 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1109/EST.2019.8806211.
Gabbert F, Memon A and Allan K (2003) Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories
for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology 17(5), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.885.
Gastaldo E (2012) Actor Arrested for Heist he Reenacted on TV. Newser, 23 April 2012. Available at https://www.
newser.com/story/144596/actor-arrested-for-heist-he-reenacted-on-tv.html.
Giannou K, Frowd CD, Taylor JR and Lander K (2021) Mindfulness in face recognition: Embedding mindfulness
instructions in the face-composite construction process. Applied Cognitive Psychology,1–37. Advance online pub-
lication.https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3829.
Gibson SJ, Solomon CJ and Pallares Bejarano A (2003) Synthesis of photographic quality facial composites using
evolutionary algorithms. In Harvey R and Bangham JA (eds), Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference,
vol. 1, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.5244/C.17.23.
Groebner V (2007) Who Are You? Identification, Deception, and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe. New York: Zone
Books.
Hardaker C (2019) Case Notes: S01E10 –The Yorkshire Ripper, part 4 of 5 In En Clair, 31 July 2019. Available at
https://wp.lancs.ac.uk/enclair/2019/07/31/case-notes-s01e10-the-yorkshire-ripper-part-4-of-5/.
Hasel LE and Wells GL (2007) Catching the bad guy: Morphing composite faces helps. Law and Human Behavior
31(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9007-2.
Havard C, Strathie A, Pike G, Walkington Z, Ness H and Harrison V (2021) From witness to web sleuth: Does
citizen enquiry on social media affect formal eyewitness identification procedures? Journal of Police and Criminal
Psychology.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09444-z.
Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S and Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin 114(1), 3–28. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3.
Junkin T (2005) Bloodsworth: The True Story of the First Death Row Inmate Exonerated by DNA. Chapel Hill: Algonquin.
Kempen K (2013) Honest lying: Composite feature confabulation and its effect on identification performance. Unpublished
Ph.D. Proposal, University of Cape Town.
Koehn CE and Fisher RP (1997) Constructing facial composites with the Mac-a-Mug Pro system. Psychology, Crime
and Law 3(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169708410815.
Koehn CE, Fisher RP and Cutler BL (1999) Using cognitive interviewing to construct facial composites. In Canter
D and Alison L (eds), Interviewing and Deception. Routledge, 41–63. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429428517.
Köhnken G, Milne R, Memon A and Bull R (1999) The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime &
Law 5(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414991.
Kovera MB, Penrod SD, Pappas C and Thill DL (1997) Identification of computer-generated facial composites.
Journal of Applied Psychology 82(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.235.
Lech AM and Johnston R (2011) The relative utility of verbal descriptions and facial composites in facial
identifications. International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology 3(3), 1–16.
Loftus EF (1976) Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law & Psychology Review 2,93–98. https://
psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-09799-001.
Loftus EF (2005) Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of
memory. Learning & Memory 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705.
Loftus EF and Greene E (1980) Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior 4(4),
323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040624.
Luu TN and Geiselman RE (1993) Cognitive retrieval techniques and order of feature construction in the forma-
tion of composite facial images. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 9(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02901650.
McNamara JM (2009) Sketchy eyewitness-identification procedures: A proposal to draw up legal guidelines for
the use of facial composites in criminal investigations. Wisconsin Law Review 2009, 763–800.
McQuiston-Surrett D and Topp LD (2008) Externalizing visual images: Examining the accuracy of facial descrip-
tions vs. composites as a function of the own-race bias. Experimental Psychology 55(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1618-3169.55.3.195.
Megreya AM and Burton AM (2006) Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory &
Cognition 34(4), 865–876. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193433.
Meissner CA and Brigham JC (2001) A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 15(6), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.728.
Memon A, Meissner CA and Fraser J (2010) The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space
analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16(4), 340–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518.
14 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Miles TJ (2005) Estimating the effect of America’s Most Wanted: A duration analysis of wanted fugitives. Journal of
Law and Economics 48(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1086/428718.
Munger D (2006) When Crime-Fighting Tools go Bad: Problems with the Face-Composite System. Cognitive Daily,
27 September. Available at http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/09/27/when-crimefighting-tools-go-ba/.
NCJRS (2013) International Association of Chiefs of Police 2013 Social Media Survey Results. Available at https://
www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/international-association-chiefs-police-2013-social-media-survey.
Ness H (2003) Improving composite images of faces produced by eyewitnesses. PhD Thesis, University of Stirling. Storre.
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1893/12555.
O’Connor CD (2017) The police on Twitter: Image management, community building, and implications for
policing in Canada. Policing and Society 27(8), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1120731.
Penry J (1970) Photo-fit. Police Journal 43(7), 307–316.
Penry J (1971) Looking at Faces and Remembering Them: A Guide to Facial Identification. London: Elek.
Pike GE, Brace NA, Turner J and Vredeveldt A (2019) The effect of facial composite construction on eyewitness
identification accuracy in an ecologically valid paradigm. Criminal Justice and Behavior 46,2.https://doi.org/10.
1177/0093854818811376.
Read JD, Tollestrup P, Hammersley R, McFadzen E and Christensen A (1990) The unconscious transference
effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology 4(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/
10.1002/acp.2350040103.
Roediger HL, III, Meade ML and Bergman E (2001) Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8
(2), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196174.
Rønn KV, Rasmussen BK, Skou Roer T and Meng C (2020) On the perception and use of information from social
media in investigative police work: Findings from a Scandinavian study. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice
15(2), 1262–1273. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa028.
Ross DF, Ceci SJ, Dunning D and Toglia MP (1994a) Unconscious transference and lineup identification: Toward
a memory blending approach. In Ross DF, Read JD and Toglia MP (eds), Adult Eyewitness Testimony. Current Trends
and Developments. New York: Cambridge University Press, 80–100.
Ross DF, Ceci SJ, Dunning D and Toglia MP (1994b) Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a
witness misidentifies a familiar with innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6), 918–930. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918
Roth M (2007) Why Police Composites Don’t Always Hit Mark. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 25 March. Available at
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2007/03/25/Why-police-composites-don-t-always-hit-mark/stories/
200703250152.
Shaherazam (1986) The Mac-A-Mug Pro Manual. Milwaukee, WI: Shaherazam.
Sirovich L and Kirby M (1987) Low-dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. Journal of the
Optical Society of America A 4(3), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.4.000519.
Skelton FC, Frowd CD, Hancock PJB, Jones HS, Jones BC, Fodarella C, Battersby K and Logan K (2020)
Constructing identifiable composite faces: The importance of cognitive alignment of interview and construc-
tion procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 26(3), 507–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000257
Sporer SL, Tredoux CG, Vredeveldt A, Kempen K and Nortje A (2020) Does exposure to facial composites dam-
age eyewitness memory? A comprehensive review. Applied Cognitive Psychology 34(5), 1166–1179. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.3705.
Stoughton Police Department (2019) Policy and Procedure: Eyewitness Identification. Available at https://www.
ci.stoughton.wi.us/vertical/sites/%7B801AC7AB-1155-4D50-B8C6-60A370EC007F%7D/uploads/
06_14_EYEWITNESS_IDENTIFICATION.pdf.
Towler A, Kemp RI and White D (2017) Unfamiliar face matching systems in applied settings. In Bindemann M
and Megreya AM (eds), Face Processing: Systems, Disorders and Cultural Difference. New York: Nova Science, 21–40.
Tredoux C, Rosenthal Y, Nunez D and da Costa L (1999) Face reconstruction using a configural, eigenface-based
composite system. Paper presented at the third meeting of the Society for Applied Research Memory and Cognition,
Boulder, Colorado.
Tredoux C, Nunez D, Oxtoby O and Prag B (2006) An evaluation of ID: An eigenface based construction system:
Reviewed article. South African Computer Journal 2006(37), 90–97.
Tredoux CG, Sporer SL, Vredeveldt A, Kempen K and Nortje A (2020) Does constructing a facial composite
affect eyewitness memory? A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09432-z.
Turchiano D (2021) ‘America’s Most Wanted’Viewer Tips Leads to 1.187th Capture. Variety. Available at https://
variety.com/2021/tv/news/americas-most-wanted-1187th-capture-exclusive-1234937141/.
Vredeveldt A, Hildebrandt A and Van Koppen PJ (2016) Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses
can help each other remember more. Memory 24(5), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1042884.
Memory, Mind & Media 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Vredeveldt A, Groen RN, Ampt JE and van Koppen PJ (2017) When discussion between eyewitnesses helps
memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology 22(2), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12097.
Vredeveldt A, Van Deuren S and Van Koppen PJ (2019) Remembering with a stranger: Comparing acquainted
and unacquainted pairs in collaborative eyewitness interviews. Memory 27(10), 1390–1403. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09658211.2019.1662052.
Wells GL, Charman SD and Olson EA (2005) Building face composites can harm lineup identification perform-
ance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.11.3.147.
Yardley E, Lynes AGT, Wilson D and Kelly E (2018) What’s the deal with ‘websleuthing’? News media represen-
tations of amateur detectives in networked spaces. Crime, Media, Culture 14(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1741659016674045.
Annelies Vredeveldt is Associate Professor of legal psychology at the Department of Criminal Law and
Criminology at VU University Amsterdam. Her research interests include eyewitness memory, investigative
interviewing, cross-cultural differences, face recognition, facial composite construction, police reports and
body-worn camera footage.
Colin Getty Tredoux is Professor of psychology at the Department of Psychology, at the Universityof Cape Town.
His research interests include eyewitness memory, face recognition, and intergroup relations.
Cite this article: Vredeveldt A, Tredoux CG (2022). Composite communication: how dissemination of facial com-
posites in the media affects police investigations. Memory, Mind & Media 1, e10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/
mem.2022.4
16 Annelies Vredeveldt and Colin Getty Tredoux
https://doi.org/10.1017/mem.2022.4 Published online by Cambridge University Press
