Verbal Descriptions of Faces From Memory: Are They Diagnostic of Identification Accuracy?

There is considerable forensic import to the hypothesis that the quality of an eyewitness' description of a face is useful for predicting the accuracy of a subsequent identification. Although previous studies have failed to support this hypothesis, those studies were designed to test only whether witnesses who are good describers also are good identifiers. The current study used 88 different target faces and found a significant point-biserial correlation between description accuracy and identification accuracy. This relationship was not due to a process wherein good describers are good identifiers, however, but was due to the fact that faces that are better described are better identified; a relationship that could not be tested in the designs of previous studies. The quality of a subject's description of a given face did no better than did a second subject's description of that face in terms of predicting the former subject's identification accuracy. Because the description-identification relationship was found to be mediated by target factors (rather than subject characteristics), it was suggested that different assessments (e.g., of target-face uniqueness) could better predict identification accuracy.

[1]  G Tiberghien,et al.  [Memory for faces]. , 1983, L'annee psychologique.

[2]  R. Lindsay,et al.  What price justice? , 1980 .

[3]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Eyewitness testimony : psychological perspectives , 1984 .

[4]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Effects of recognition on subsequent recall: Comments on "Determinants of recognition and recall: Accessibility and generation" by Rabinowitz, Mandler, and Patterson. , 1977 .

[5]  S. Oskamp,et al.  Testimony validity as a function of question form, atmosphere, and item difficulty. , 1972 .

[6]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Does fluency of face description imply superior face recognition , 1979 .

[7]  E Tulving,et al.  Recognition failure of words with a single meaning , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition. , 1985 .

[9]  G. Wells,et al.  Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[10]  M. Courtois,et al.  Target and distractor typicality in facial recognition , 1981 .

[11]  H. Ellis,et al.  Perceiving and remembering faces , 1983 .

[12]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[13]  T. Howells A study of ability to recognize faces. , 1938 .

[14]  George Mandler,et al.  Determinants of recognition and recall: Accessibility and generation , 1977 .

[15]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[16]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Methodological notes on the accuracy–confidence relation in eyewitness identifications. , 1985 .

[17]  A. J. Flexser,et al.  Retrieval independence in recognition and recall. , 1978 .

[18]  G. Bower,et al.  Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory , 1974 .

[19]  R. Lindsay,et al.  On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness Nonidentifications , 1980 .

[20]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. , 1981 .

[21]  G. Wells,et al.  What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy , 1983 .