Nonlinear relationships between eye gaze and recognition accuracy for ethnic ingroup and outgroup faces.

Researchers have used eye-tracking measures to explore the relationship between face encoding and recognition, including the impact of ethnicity on this relationship. Previous studies offer a variety of conflicting conclusions. This confusion may stem from misestimation of the relationship between encoding and recognition. First, most previous models fail to account for the structure of eye-tracking data, potentially falling prey to Simpson's paradox. Second, previous models assume a linear relationship between attention (e.g., the number of fixations to a to-be-remembered face) and recognition accuracy. Two eye-tracking studies (Ns = 41, 59), one online experiment that manipulates exposure (N = 150), and a mega-analysis examine the effects of ethnicity using what we believe to be more appropriate analytical models. Across studies and measures, we document a novel, critical pattern: The relationship between attention and recognition is nonlinear and negatively accelerating. At low levels of baseline attention, a small increment in attention improves recognition. However, as attention increases further, increments yield smaller and smaller benefits. This finding parallels work in learning and memory. In models that allow for nonlinearity, we find evidence that central features (eyes, nose, and mouth) generally contribute to recognition accuracy, potentially resolving disagreements in the field. We also find that the effects of attention on recognition are similar for ingroup and outgroup faces, which have important implications for theories of perceptual expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The effect of pre-event instructions on eyewitness identification.

Research on eyewitness identification often involves exposing participants to a simulated crime and later testing memory using a lineup. We conducted a systematic review showing that pre-event instructions, instructions given before event exposure, are rarely reported and those that are reported vary in the extent to which they warn participants about the nature of the event or tasks. At odds with the experience of actual witnesses, some studies use pre-event instructions explicitly warning participants of the upcoming crime and lineup task. Both the basic and applied literature provide reason to believe that pre-event instructions may affect eyewitness identification performance. In the current experiment, we tested the impact of pre-event instructions on lineup identification decisions and confidence. Participants received non-specific pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this video") or eyewitness pre-event instructions (i.e., "watch this crime video, you'll complete a lineup later") and completed a culprit-absent or -present lineup. We found no support for the hypothesis that participants who receive eyewitness pre-event instructions have higher discriminability than participants who receive non-specific pre-event instructions. Additionally, confidence-accuracy calibration was not significantly different between conditions. However, participants in the eyewitness condition were more likely to see the event as a crime and to make an identification than participants in the non-specific condition. Implications for conducting and interpreting eyewitness identification research and the basic research on instructions and attention are discussed.