Face Recognition in Context: A Case Study of Tips on a Call-in Crime TV Show Otto H. MacLin University of Northern Iowa
Ryan Tapscott Iowa State University
M. Kimberly MacLin University of Northern Iowa Law enforcement agencies regularly call on citizens to aid in the capturing of criminals. The present research examined actual tip sheets collected by operators and used by police to apprehend a fugitive featured on a call-in crime show. We examined caller demographic information, when the tip was called in, geographical and situational information of the reported fugitive sighting, as well as the accuracy of callers’ descriptions. Results indicate that callers compared the information viewed on the show to memories of previous encounters with people they thought was the fugitive and called in within two hours of airing. Findings are evaluated in terms of the cognitive processes involved in face recognition and how they differ from face recognition processes involved in eyewitness identification.
Society places increasing demands on the public to help identify terrorists and criminals at large, and to find missing or runaway children (Bailey, 2005; BBC, 2004; Handlin, 2001; Kresnak & Askari, 2002; Martindale, 2003; Merzer, Kuhnhenn, & Strobel, 2003). Since the FBI’s first wanted poster in 1910, over 5,400 such “identification orders” have been regularly disseminated to the public (http://www.fbi.gov). Law enforcement agencies regularly call on citizens to aid in the capturing of criminals and communicate with the public in the form of billboards, news stories, press releases, reenactments on call-in shows, and websites. This concept of tapping into public knowledge has been extended in creative ways to solicit information to find missing children, sex offenders, identify unknown deceased victims, and locate terrorists. Law enforcement agencies go to great effort and expense to create composite images from witness reports (Dawes, 1986, Frowd et al., 2005), or to create a photographable clay model of a face from skeletal remains (Manhein, 2005; Manhein, et al., 2000). The faces of missing children are regularly posted in Wal-Mart entrances, on milk cartons, and via Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Otto MacLin, Department of Psychology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614 or e-mail at
[email protected]. North American Journal of Psychology, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 3, 459-468. NAJP
460
NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Amber alerts on television and digital billboards on highways. The U.S. Military distributed playing cards with the facial images of wanted Iraqis to soldiers in hopes of increasing the likelihood of capture (Zucco, 2003). Many of these examples rely on the dissemination of facial information to the public in order to see if anyone knows or has seen a particular person. If someone does, they can then respond with information (known as a ‘tip’) to authorities. Facial images (photos, composites, or video) can be used to try to find someone unknown to authorities (e.g., eyewitness identification), or to find someone known to authorities (e.g., fugitive situation). Each of these situations is a unique face recognition scenario. In eyewitness identification, a witness sees or experiences a crime. The witness encodes details of the crime, and then stores the information in memory for later recall. This information may include a mental image of the perpetrator’s face. The information may be used to generate a composite image, or serve as a source of verbal information (a physical description). At some point after the crime, the witness may be shown a mug shot, live lineup, or a photo array and asked to indicate if he or she recognizes anyone and to confirm that the photo presented is the person from the original event (Haber & Haber, 2000; Lindsey, Nosworthy, Martin, & Martynuck, 1994; Wells, 1993). In eyewitness identification, the witness is seeking to match the image in his or her mind with an image(s) presented. In fugitive situations, a person is presented with a photo, composite, video, or information (e.g., vehicle or physical description) via television, internet, posters, or billboards. They are asked to report any information that may be useful in locating the person depicted. In particular, the facial image/information may serve as a cue to memory of a previous event (“I remember seeing this person at the store;” “that’s my cousin!”) or as an alert to notice this person in the environment (“I’m going to keep my eye out for this person”). Depending on metacognitive factors (e.g., how strong they feel their memory trace is; their level of confidence in their ‘match’) and social factors (e.g., their desire to help, fear of repercussions, etc) they may or may not provide their information to police. This type of memory process requires a person to match a photograph or other image to any and all possible matches in memory. We know a great deal about how people recognize faces, and much about factors such as typicality and distinctiveness (Shapiro & Penrod, 1986; Vokey & Read, 1989), race (MacLin & Malpass, 2001; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001), multiple views and multiple opportunities to view (Maentylae & Cornoldi, 2002), context (Davies & Milne, 1982; Sanders, 1984; Sporer, 1993; Thompson, Robertson, & Vogt, 1982), and delay (MacLin, MacLin, & Malpass, 2001; Shepherd, 1983). Much of this research has been done in the
MacLin
FACE RECOGNITION IN CONTEXT
461
context of eyewitness identification, or as basic research to study face recognition processes. The archival study presented here takes a first step in examining face recognition processes at work in fugitive situations where the public is asked to evaluate and provide information from facial information (in this case, a photograph). We examined archival data from tip sheets resulting from the airing of a call-in crime show that highlighted the escape of a prison inmate. He was ultimately apprehended from the information provided by a caller. METHOD The fugitive was an African American male in his mid 30’s. Photographic images of him along with his name were aired twice, approximately three weeks apart, in 1999. Details of his crimes and the fugitive situation were provided. The operators who received the calls collected demographic information from the caller as well as information specific to the location, description, and activities of the person the caller believed to be the fugitive whose photo was aired on television. As a result of consulting with the fugitive and his attorney about legal matters unrelated to the escape, we gained access to the call-in tip sheets. RESULTS Caller Information. Sixty-six (66) people called in to report a tip. Of the 58 callers who reported their gender, 24 (41%) were female and 34 (59%) were male. Of the 42 callers who reported their race, 5 (12%) were African American and 37 (88%) were white. The mean age of callers was 31.8 yrs. (range = 12-80). An additional 4 callers were recorded as ‘older’ and one as ‘middle aged.’ When Callers Phoned In. As mentioned previously, the program aired the segment twice over a three-week period. After the first airing, 18 people called within 2 hours of the airing and two people called on the same day, while two called the following day. After the second airing, 33 people called in within 2 hours of the show’s airing. One person called on the day of the airing, while six others called within a week of seeing the show. The caller who ultimately led police to the fugitive called almost 2 months after the second airing. In sum, 86% of the calls were made 24 hours after the show was aired. Fugitive Information. Most (92%) of the callers reported having seen the fugitive (as opposed to reporting that they saw the show and knew him “that’s my cousin”). We do not know which if any of the tips were actual sightings of the fugitive. Keep in mind that there is no evidence (with the exception of the one call leading to his capture) that any of the callers actually saw or came into contact with him. Once in custody, the fugitive stated to the first author that only the final tip was correct (in
462
NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
other words, he claimed that he wasn’t in or around the locations reported by the other callers). This is of course, difficult to verify, though it is plausible given the wide range of locations in which he was reported to have been seen. We then presume that most if not all (but one) of the reports were misidentifications. On average, callers described him as 32 years old (range = 26-45), 70.3 inches tall (range = 65.5-74), and 179.6 pounds (range = 150-240). When asked for additional information about the fugitive, 19 callers (29%) commented on scars, 9 (13%) on facial hair, 5 (8%) on complexion, 4 (6%) on tattoos, and two callers (3%) commented on his eyes. Forty-two callers (65%) provided information about his hair, with 25 of those callers stating he had short hair. These characteristics are consistent with the photo aired and thus are not necessarily indicative of their memory of the fugitive or the person they thought was the fugitive. Place and Circumstance of Caller Encounter with Potential Fugitive. Callers were also asked to provide details regarding how they knew the person they thought was the fugitive, where he was seen, and what was going on. The majority of the callers (63%) reported seeing the fugitive in passing. Of these, 26% reported seeing him on the highway or driving, 15% in a grocery or liquor store, 13% in an apartment complex, 10% on a bus, 8% at a gas station, 8% at a hospital, and the remainder at restaurants, or other places of business (cleaners, auto parts store). Interestingly, 61% of these description included information stereotypical of criminal activity (MacLin & Herrera, 2006). In particular, 13% reported seeing the fugitive engaged in drug use or distribution, and 11% reported seeing him in a fight or picking a fight. Others said he was trying to clean blood soaked clothes, was looking over his shoulder, was crouched low in a car, selling jewelry, trying to borrow money, or “acting weird.” Nineteen percent (19%) reported actual contact with him (drug deal, asked for directions) and 5% reported seeing him with a friend or a relative. Nearly a quarter of callers (24%) reported that they were familiar with the fugitive (only the one caller was known to be correct), 6 (9%) provided a name for him (4 provided the same name that was aired), and three callers (5%) reported seeing his likeness in other media (e.g., news coverage, composite sketch). Over half of the callers (55%) indicated they had last seen him between the day of the call and 180 days earlier. Additionally, 3 callers (5%) reported seeing him either 1, 4, or 8 years previously. On average, he was said to be seen 550 miles away from where the crime occurred, ranging from the Midwestern states (52%; M = 199 miles), southern states (35 %; M = 739 miles), Northeastern states (3%; M = 731), and Western states (8%; M = 1921 miles; (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998 for regional definitions). The fugitive was ultimately apprehended in the Southern region, 784 miles away from where the actual crime occurred.
MacLin
FACE RECOGNITION IN CONTEXT
463
Apprehending Tip. One of the 66 tips resulted in the apprehension of the fugitive. We know that the tip ultimately leading to his capture was an accurate account in that the police were able to locate him based on information provided by the caller. The tip was phoned in approximately two months after the last airing of the show. The caller reported that she had last seen him three or four months earlier in a Southern state. The caller provided an address and apartment number where she had last seen him plus details of the apartment complex. Also provided was the name of the caller’s friend who was known to affiliate with the fugitive, and the approximate location and type of the fugitive’s work. DISCUSSION Prospective vs. Retrospective Memory. Prior to analyzing the data we did not know which type of memory process was operating. Prospective memory (McDaniel & Einstein, 2000) would be indicated if the callers were memorizing the facial image from TV and then using that information to recognize him when they saw him at some point in the future. Retrospective memory (Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009) would be indicated if they saw the photograph on the show and retrieved from memory information about him from a previous encounter. This latter situation is what we found; callers typically phoned in a few hours after the show suggesting they were comparing the photo they saw on TV with people they had encountered previously, providing interesting insight into the metacognitive processes of these callers (c.f., Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994; Shimamura, 2000). Further, some callers reported some level of familiarity with the person they believed to be the fugitive portrayed on the show. Of these, six provided names for the individual (four of these names were variations of the fugitive’s name). This is interesting because research on face recognition suggests that we have different processes for recognizing familiar persons than we do for unfamiliar persons or strangers (Bruce & Young, 1986; Burton & Bruce, 1992). It is important, however, to remember that his name was provided along with the photo on the show. Other Memory Processes. Given that we are fairly certain that the recognition memory of many (if not all but one) of the callers was inaccurate, how then could so many people call in claiming to have seen him? First, we know that repeated viewing helps memory for faces (Bruce & Young, 1986; Maentylae & Cornoldi, 2002). However, if people are searching their memory while watching the show for instances of encountering the individual perhaps repeated viewing facilitates the retrieval process by giving the viewers additional opportunities to search their memory for the person. It is also possible that the second viewing created a sense of familiarity leading to a more elaborative memory
464
NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
search (Koriat, 1993) that may have led to the inclusion of more possibilities, though many inaccurate ones. Second, the cross race effect may have been operating. The cross race effect occurs when members of one race have greater difficulty recognizing members of a race other than their own (MacLin & Malpass, 2001; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001); and that this bias leads to an increase in false alarms (believing that you have seen a person before when in fact you have not). Most of the callers were white, while relatively few were African American – the same race as the fugitive. This difference may represent the demographics of the show’s viewers, or perhaps hesitancy for African Americans to inform on other African Americans. The fact that so many of the callers were wrong (and white) could be due to the cross race effect. Third, schema effects on memory may have been operating. In our data, 61% of the descriptions included reference to stereotypically criminal activity. This is consistent with the contextual information associated with the criminal stereotype (MacLin & Herrera, 2006). In other words, knowing that they were looking for a criminal may have increased the likelihood of “seeing” him in schema-consistent locations (for example, no one said “he goes to my church”). This fugitive situation provides an interesting example of retrospective memory that seems to function like a face recognition task where people search their memory and make an “old” / “new” decision for each face in a recognition task. Individuals go through a relatively automatic process asking: “Does this person look familiar?” Then… “Can I retrieve semantic information about him?” Then… “Do I know his name?” (Bruce & Young, 1986; Burton & Bruce, 1992). If the facial image closely matches a face stored in the viewer’s memory, or if some of the semantic information retrieved is criminal in nature or if the person’s name is similar, the viewer may be more likely to call in and provide a tip. The difference between an airing of a photograph on a television show, and an eyewitness to a crime, is that the eyewitness is trying to match a photo to a particular person from a particular event. When viewing a television show and seeing a photograph, the viewer is attempting to match the photograph with all possible instances of that person or a similar person in memory. Conclusions Studying everyday memory can be challenging (Neisser, 1978). However, eyewitness researchers have been able to overcome these challenges by developing a variety of experimental methods that generalize to real-world situations (Malpass & Devine, 1980; Wells,
MacLin
FACE RECOGNITION IN CONTEXT
465
1978; Wells & Olson, 2002). The same can be true for studying this special context of facial recognition and identification. One would be to post “wanted” or “missing” posters with a toll free number, an email address, or a URL to report the suspect. Additionally, a small wanted or missing ad in a major newspaper or website including a photo could be placed. Researchers could vary the amount of reward, location of the posters, type of crime, or race, age and gender of the suspect, in order to answer questions such as: How often does a photo of a sex offender need to be aired or published before the parents in the neighborhood will recognize him or her? How does airing a crime reenactment affect the subsequent recognition of the criminal at large? Does the reenactment of the crime on TV create a transference between the actors and the actual image of the suspect (e.g., Loftus, 1976; Ross, Ceci, Dunning, & Toglia, 1994)? How does contextual information affect the tipster’s response? Does the fact that “he was last seen in Oklahoma” reduce the likelihood that a viewer will call in from Oregon, in spite of the fact that anyone can travel between those distances in less than a day? Can knowing the demographics of the tipster help determine what would motivate them to call in? For example, if males between 20 and 30 are the primary tipsters, can we use this information to tailor the message to them? These are just some of the applied questions that have yet to be answered. In sum, the “tipster” process is ripe for studying other aspects of face recognition in an applied setting beyond eyewitness identification. Based on the data we evaluated, we found potential race effects of the caller, a contextual bias, as well as interesting information on when people called in. Because most people called in shortly after the airing of the photos, it is most likely that viewers examined the photo and then searched their memory for targets resembling the photo (“Hey that looks like…”). The retrieved target might then be evaluated against the contextual information (“…the strange guy in the liquor store”). At this point viewers may evaluate the likelihood that this is the person the police are looking for and then decide if they should call in (“The guy I saw on vacation in Hawaii—it can’t be him—because the crime happened in the Midwest”). While some of these processes are common to the eyewitness identification process, they appear to have more in common with everyday face recognition processes. REFERENCES BBC News (2004, March 14). Public told to be on terror alert. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3510354.stm Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M.W. & Anderson, M.C. (2009). Memory. New York: Psychology Press. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305-327.
466
NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Burton, A. M, & Bruce, V. (1992). I recognize your face but I can’t recognize your name: A simple explanation. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 45-60. Davies, G., & Milne, A. (1982). Recognizing faces in and out of context. Current Psychological Research, 2, 235-246. Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., McLanaghan, S., & Hancock, P. (2005). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 33-52. Haber, R. N., & Haber, L. (2000). Experiencing, remembering, and reporting events. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1057-1097. Handlin, S. (2001, November 21). Volunteers and law enforcement team up to fight cybercrime. Retrieved January 7, 2005 from http://www.courttv .com/news/cow/112001_cyberangels_ctv.html Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know what we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639. Kresnak, J. & Askari, E. (2002, September 18). Michigan’s missing children: Help find these kids. Retrieved January 7, 2005, from http://www.freep.com/news/childrenfirst/child18_20020918.htm Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93-98. MacLin, M. K., & Herrera, V. (2006). The criminal stereotype. The North American Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 197-208. MacLin, O. H., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Racial categorization of faces: The ambiguous race face effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 98-118. MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., Malpass, R. S. (2001). Race, arousal, exposure, and delay: An examination of factors mediating face recognition. Psychology, Public Policy & Law. 7(1), 98-118. Maentylae, T., & Cornoldi, C. (2002). Remembering changes: Repetition effects in face recollection. Acta Psychologica, 109, 95-105. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1980). Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 347-358. Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other "race". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,13, 330-334. Manhein, M. H. (2005). Trail of bone: More cases from the files of a forensic anthropologist. Baton Rouge: LSU Press. Manhein, M. H., Listi, G. A., Barsley, R. E., Musselman, R., Barrow, N. E. & Ubelaker, D. H. (2000). In vivo facial tissue depth measurements for children and adults. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45 (1) 48-60. Martindale, M. (2003, May 1). Amber alert now protects all children. Retrieved January 2, 2005, from http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0305/01/a02152471.htm Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the ownrace bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S127-S144. Merzer, M., Kuhnhenn, J., & Strobel, W. P. (2003, February 8). Nation on high terrorist alert: Flurry of Al Qaeda communication has U.S. officials
MacLin
FACE RECOGNITION IN CONTEXT
467
worried. Retrieved January 7, 2005, from http://www.freep.com/news/nw/ alert8_20030208.htm Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: what are the important questions? In M..M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory (pp. 3-24). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ross, D. F, Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930. Sanders, G. S. (1984). The effects of context cues on eyewitness identification responses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 386-397. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156. Shepherd, J. (1983). Identification after long delays. In B. R. C. S.M.A. LloydBostock (Ed.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 173-187). New York: Wiley. Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 313-323. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Clothing as a contextual cue in facial recognition. German Journal of Psychology, 17, 183-199. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1998, October). Statistical abstract of the United States. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/fig1.html Vokey, J. R., & Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces. Memory & Cognition, 3, 291-302. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Zucco, T. (2003, April 12). Troops dealt an old tool. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/12/Worldandnation/Troops_dealt _an_old_t.shtml
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
