We applied a metacognitive approach to investigate confidence in recognition of prototypical faces. Participants were presented with sets of faces constructed digitally as deviations from prototype/base faces. Participants were then tested with a simple recognition task (Experiment 1) or a multiple-choice task (Experiment 2) for old and new items plus new prototypes, and they showed a high rate of confident false alarms to the prototypes. Confidence and accuracy relationship in this face recognition paradigm was found to be positive for standard items but negative for the prototypes; thus, it was contingent on the nature of the items used. The data have implications for lineups that employ match-to-suspect strategies.
BartlettJ. C.SearcyJ. (1993). Inversion and conversion of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–361. doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1007
2.
BaudouinJ.-Y.BrochardR. (2011). Gender-based prototype formation in face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 888–898. doi:10.1037/a0022963
3.
BehrmanB. W.RichardsR. E. (2005). Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: A reality monitoring analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 279–301. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-3617-y
4.
BrewerN.WellsG. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 24–27.
5.
BrewerW. F.SampaioC. (2006). Processes leading to confidence and accuracy in sentence recognition: A metamemory approach. Memory, 14, 540–552.
6.
BrewerW. F.SampaioC. (2012). The metamemory approach to confidence: A test using semantic memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 59–77.
7.
BrewerW. F.SampaioC.BarlowM. R. (2005). Confidence and accuracy in the recall of deceptive and nondeceptive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 618–627.
BuseyT. A.TunnicliffJ.LoftusG. R.LoftusE. F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 26–48.
10.
CabezaR.KatoT. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429–433.
11.
CarlsonC. A.GronlundS. D.WeatherfordD. R.CarlsonM. A. (2012). Processing differences between feature-based facial composites and photo of real faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 525–540. doi:10.1002/acp.2824
12.
CostermansJ.LoriesG.AnsayC. (1992). Confidence level and feeling of knowing in question answering: The weight of inferential processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 142–150.
13.
DeSotoK. A.RoedigerH. L. (2014). Positive and negative correlations between confidence and accuracy for the same events in recognition of categorized lists. Psychological Science, 25, 781–788.
14.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. D.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception?Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
15.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU.KleinböltingH. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528.
16.
GoldsmithM. (2011). Quantity-accuracy profiles or type-2 signal detection measures? Similar methods toward a common goal. In HighamP.LeboeJ. P., (Eds.), Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in honour of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 128–136). Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.
17.
HorryR.BrewerN. (2016). How target–lure similarity shapes confidence judgments in multiple-alternative decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1615–1634.
KoriatA. (1995). Dissociating knowing and the feeling of knowing: Further evidence for the accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 311–333.
20.
KoriatA. (2008). Subjective confidence in one’s answers: The consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 945–959.
21.
KoriatA.AckermanR. (2010). Metacognition and mindreading: Judgments of learning for self and other during self-paced study. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 251–264.
22.
KoriatA.GoldsmithM. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517.
23.
KoriatA.NussinsonR.BlessH.NiraS. (2008). Information-based and experience-based metacognitive judgements: Evidence from a subjective confidence. In DunloskyJ.BjorkR. A.DunloskyJ.BjorkR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 117–135). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
24.
LaugheryK. R.JensenD. G.WogalterM. S. (1988). Response bias ith prototypic faces. In GrunebergM. M.SykesR.MorrisP. (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 157–162). New York: Wiley.
25.
LeippeM. R. (1980). Effect of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 261–274.
26.
LoftusE. F.LoftusG. R.MessoJ. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.”Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55–62. doi:10.1007/BF01044839
27.
MaurerD.Le GrandR.MondlochC. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255–260.
28.
McQuiston-SurrettD.ToppL. D.MalpassR. S. (2006). Use of facial composite systems in US law enforcement agencies, 12, 505–517. doi:10.1080/10683160500254904
29.
MichelC.CaldaraR.RossionB. (2006). Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Visual Cognition, 14, 55–73.
30.
NelsonT. O.GerlerD.NarensL. (1984). Accuracy of feeling-of-knowing judgments for predicting perceptual identification and relearning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 282–300. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.wwu.edu/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.282
31.
PalmeriT. J.NosofskyR. M. (2001). Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categorization. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 54, 197–235. doi:10.1080/02724980042000084
32.
PatersonH. M.KempR. I. (2006). Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: The power of co-witness suggestion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1083–1099. doi:10.1002/acp.1261
33.
PerfectT. J.HollinsT. S. (1996). Predictive feeling of knowing judgments and postdictive confidence judgments in eyewitness memory and general knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 371–382.
34.
PosnerM. I.KeeleS. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.
35.
ReinitzM. T.SeguinJ. A.PeriaW.LoftusG. R. (2012). Confidence-accuracy relations for faces and scenes: Roles of feature and familiarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1085–1093. doi:10.375/s13423-012-0308-9
36.
SampaioC.BrewerW. F. (2009). The role of unconscious memory errors in judgments of confidence for sentence recognition. Memory & Cognition, 37, 158–163.
37.
SolsoR. L.McCarthyJ. E. (1981). Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo memory. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 499–503.
38.
SporerS.PenrodS.ReadD.CutlerB. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
39.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225–245.
40.
TanakaJ. W.SimonyiD. (2016). The “parts and wholes” of face recognition: A review of the literature. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 14.
41.
Van ZandtT. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582–600.
42.
WallisG. (2013). Toward a unified model of face and object recognition in the human visual system. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 497. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00497
43.
WallisG.SiebeckU. E.SwannK.BlanzV.BulthoffH. H. (2008). The prototype effect revisited: Evidence for an abstract feature model of face recognition. Journal of Vision, 8(3), 20.1-20.15. doi:10.1167/8.2.20
44.
WixtedJ. T.MickesL. (2015). ROC analysis measures objective discriminability for any eyewitness identification procedure. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 4, 329–334.
45.
WogalterM. S.MarwitzD. B.LeonardD. C. (1992). Suggestiveness in photospread line-ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 443–453. doi:10.1002/acp.2530060508
