Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one?

Markus Bindemann, Adam Sandford, Katie Gillatt, Meri Avetisyan, Ahmed M. Megreya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The ability to identify an unfamiliar target face from an identity lineup declines when it is accompanied by a second face during visual encoding. This two-face disadvantage is still little studied and its basis remains poorly understood. This study investigated several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Experiments 1 and 2 varied the number of potential targets (1 or 2) and the number of faces in a lineup (5 or 10) to explore if this effect arises from the number of identity comparisons that need to be made to detect a target in a lineup. These experiments also explored if this effect arises from an uncertainty concerning which is the to-be-identified target in two-face displays, by cueing the relevant face during encoding. Experiment 3 then examined whether the two-face disadvantage reflects the depth of face encoding or a memory effect. The results show that this effect arises from the additional comparisons that are necessary to compare two potential targets to an identity lineup when memory demands are minimized (Experiment 1), but it reflects a difficulty in remembering several faces when targets and lineups cannot be viewed simultaneously (Experiments 2 and 3). However, in both cases the two-face disadvantage could not be eliminated fully by cueing the target. This hints at a further possible locus for this effect, which might reflect perceptual interference during the initial encoding of the target. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)415-435
Number of pages21
JournalPerception
Volume41
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Head
Experiments
Data storage equipment
Display devices
Aptitude
Uncertainty

Keywords

  • person identification
  • multiple-perpetrator effect
  • two-face disadvantage

Cite this

Bindemann, M., Sandford, A., Gillatt, K., Avetisyan, M., & Megreya, A. M. (2012). Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one? Perception, 41(4), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6922

Recognizing faces seen alone or with others : why are two heads worse than one? / Bindemann, Markus; Sandford, Adam; Gillatt, Katie; Avetisyan, Meri; Megreya, Ahmed M.

In: Perception, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2012, p. 415-435.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bindemann, M, Sandford, A, Gillatt, K, Avetisyan, M & Megreya, AM 2012, 'Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one?', Perception, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6922
Bindemann M, Sandford A, Gillatt K, Avetisyan M, Megreya AM. Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one? Perception. 2012;41(4):415-435. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6922
Bindemann, Markus ; Sandford, Adam ; Gillatt, Katie ; Avetisyan, Meri ; Megreya, Ahmed M. / Recognizing faces seen alone or with others : why are two heads worse than one?. In: Perception. 2012 ; Vol. 41, No. 4. pp. 415-435.
@article{2d953dfff9cc41e98f447b1c8ab56d9b,
title = "Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: why are two heads worse than one?",
abstract = "The ability to identify an unfamiliar target face from an identity lineup declines when it is accompanied by a second face during visual encoding. This two-face disadvantage is still little studied and its basis remains poorly understood. This study investigated several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Experiments 1 and 2 varied the number of potential targets (1 or 2) and the number of faces in a lineup (5 or 10) to explore if this effect arises from the number of identity comparisons that need to be made to detect a target in a lineup. These experiments also explored if this effect arises from an uncertainty concerning which is the to-be-identified target in two-face displays, by cueing the relevant face during encoding. Experiment 3 then examined whether the two-face disadvantage reflects the depth of face encoding or a memory effect. The results show that this effect arises from the additional comparisons that are necessary to compare two potential targets to an identity lineup when memory demands are minimized (Experiment 1), but it reflects a difficulty in remembering several faces when targets and lineups cannot be viewed simultaneously (Experiments 2 and 3). However, in both cases the two-face disadvantage could not be eliminated fully by cueing the target. This hints at a further possible locus for this effect, which might reflect perceptual interference during the initial encoding of the target. The implications of these findings are discussed.",
keywords = "person identification, multiple-perpetrator effect, two-face disadvantage",
author = "Markus Bindemann and Adam Sandford and Katie Gillatt and Meri Avetisyan and Megreya, {Ahmed M.}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1068/p6922",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "415--435",
journal = "Perception",
issn = "0301-0066",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd STM",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recognizing faces seen alone or with others

T2 - why are two heads worse than one?

AU - Bindemann, Markus

AU - Sandford, Adam

AU - Gillatt, Katie

AU - Avetisyan, Meri

AU - Megreya, Ahmed M.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The ability to identify an unfamiliar target face from an identity lineup declines when it is accompanied by a second face during visual encoding. This two-face disadvantage is still little studied and its basis remains poorly understood. This study investigated several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Experiments 1 and 2 varied the number of potential targets (1 or 2) and the number of faces in a lineup (5 or 10) to explore if this effect arises from the number of identity comparisons that need to be made to detect a target in a lineup. These experiments also explored if this effect arises from an uncertainty concerning which is the to-be-identified target in two-face displays, by cueing the relevant face during encoding. Experiment 3 then examined whether the two-face disadvantage reflects the depth of face encoding or a memory effect. The results show that this effect arises from the additional comparisons that are necessary to compare two potential targets to an identity lineup when memory demands are minimized (Experiment 1), but it reflects a difficulty in remembering several faces when targets and lineups cannot be viewed simultaneously (Experiments 2 and 3). However, in both cases the two-face disadvantage could not be eliminated fully by cueing the target. This hints at a further possible locus for this effect, which might reflect perceptual interference during the initial encoding of the target. The implications of these findings are discussed.

AB - The ability to identify an unfamiliar target face from an identity lineup declines when it is accompanied by a second face during visual encoding. This two-face disadvantage is still little studied and its basis remains poorly understood. This study investigated several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Experiments 1 and 2 varied the number of potential targets (1 or 2) and the number of faces in a lineup (5 or 10) to explore if this effect arises from the number of identity comparisons that need to be made to detect a target in a lineup. These experiments also explored if this effect arises from an uncertainty concerning which is the to-be-identified target in two-face displays, by cueing the relevant face during encoding. Experiment 3 then examined whether the two-face disadvantage reflects the depth of face encoding or a memory effect. The results show that this effect arises from the additional comparisons that are necessary to compare two potential targets to an identity lineup when memory demands are minimized (Experiment 1), but it reflects a difficulty in remembering several faces when targets and lineups cannot be viewed simultaneously (Experiments 2 and 3). However, in both cases the two-face disadvantage could not be eliminated fully by cueing the target. This hints at a further possible locus for this effect, which might reflect perceptual interference during the initial encoding of the target. The implications of these findings are discussed.

KW - person identification

KW - multiple-perpetrator effect

KW - two-face disadvantage

U2 - 10.1068/p6922

DO - 10.1068/p6922

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 415

EP - 435

JO - Perception

JF - Perception

SN - 0301-0066

IS - 4

ER -