Pozzulo et al. (2011) - "The Culprit in Target-Absent Lineups: Understanding Young Children's False Positive Responding."

Aim #1 (children)

To investigate if children are less able to recognize human faces than adults.

Aim #2 (cognitive/social)

To investigate if cognitive and/or social factors affect correct identification and false positive responses in a line-up.

Sample (Children)

• 59 children

• 4-7 years old (Mean Age: 4.98; SD: 0.8)

• 21 females and 38 males

• Recruited from pre-k/kindergarten classes from three private schools.

• Eastern Ontario, Canda

Sampling technique (Children)

Opportunity Sample

Sample (Adults)

• 53 Adults

• 17-30 years old (Mean 20.54; SD: 3.34)

• 36 females and 17 Males

• Recruited from the introductory Psychology Participant Pool from Eastern Ontario University

Sampling technique (Adults)

Volunteer/self-selecting

Experimental type

Laboratory experiment

Research method

• Closed-ended questionnaires

• Structured interviews.

Type of data collected

QUANTITATIVE DATA ONLY.

Data collected.

• Percentages of correct targets (cartoon or human) chosen

• Percentage of Foil Chosen

• Percentage of false rejection

• Percentages of correct rejection (cartoon or human)
  Percentages of incorrect rejection

Independent variables

• Age (young children or adults)

• Nature of target faces (familiar cartoons or unfamiliar human faces)

• Type of line-up (target-present or target-absent)

Dependent Variables

• Correct identification rates for target present line-ups

• Correct rejection rates for target-absent line-ups

Experimental Design

• Hybrid Independent and repeated measures (Cambridge would look for Independent Measures)

Apparatus (Demographic and Cartoon Watching Form)

• Each participant (for children, provided to their parent/guardian) was provided with a response form for demographics and to assess level of familiarity with the target cartoons used.
  

• Eight questions (Requested…):
  

• Age

• Gender

• Primary language

• Ethnicity

• Number of children in household and their ages

• Amount of time spent watching cartoons per week

• How much time spent watching the two target cartoons used in this study (Dora/Diego)

Apparatus (Human Face Targets)

• One female and one male Caucasian university student. Each 22 years-old were used as targets

• Each target was filmed completing an everyday task for a colored. muted six-second clip

• Female: Brushing her hair in the bathroom

• Male: Putting on his coat and exiting his home
  

• Each video provided a 2-3 second close-up of the individual’s face.

Apparatus (Human Face Foils)

• Each human target was photographed in a different outfit than in the video clip

• Foils selected from pool of 90 F faces and 90 M faces.

• Foils selected based on similar appearance to the intended target

  • Similarity was measured in terms of general facial structure, hair length, and color.
    
    

Apparatus (Human Face Targets/Foils in the Line-ups)

• Three raters selected the 4 foils for each target

• Targets and foils cropped so face, neck, and tops of shoulders were photographed

• Target present line-ups contained target and three foils

• Target-absent line-ups contained four foils.

• All photos were in black and white

Apparatus (Cartoon targets)

• One female (Dora) and one male (Diego) cartoon character were used

• Six second colored, muted clips of:

  • Dora the explorer talking to the audience

  • Go Diego Go putting on a pair of gloves for safety.
    
    Each video provided 2-3 second close-up of the target’s face with no other characters.
    
    

Apparatus (Cartoon Foils)

• Selected from a vast number of readily available cartoon images online

• Foils were selected based on similar appearance to the intended target

  • Similarly measured in terms of general facial structure, hair length, and color.

• Three raters judged approximately 10 photographs for each target.

Apparatus (Cartoon foils/Targets)

• Most cartoon characters were displayed in similar clothes across different videos.

• Photo-arrays closely cropped to the target’s face to reduce appearance of any clothing worn

• To compensate for strong and vibrant cartoon colors, all photographs were displayed in black and white to reduce possibility that bright colors would be the focus of recognition rather than the identity of the target

• Target-present: Target + 3 foils

• Target-absent: 4 foils

Controls

• All participants completed paperwork prior to the procedure

• All videos + line-ups were presented in random order

• Instructions for the photo-array line-ups were standardized

• The line-ups were presented using a presentation software on a laptop.

• All experimenters wore the same type of “professional-casual” clothing.

Professional Casual Clothing

• Sweater

• Blouse

• Dress pants

• “Neat” in appearance but not overly formal (no uniforms or lab coats)

Procedure (Children; before the procedure)

• Parents/Guardians of children attending supplied with a written consent form and a demographics sheet

  • Completed by these individuals to ensure children were familiar with the target cartoons.

• With consent and completed forms, three female experimenters and one female facilitator arrived at each school.

• Researchers introduced to students as a group from university doing a project on TV shows and computer games.

Procedure (Children; Extra Precautions made for children)

• During introduction/invitation to participate, researchers made it clear to the children that they could change their mind at any time and not get into trouble.

• To create comfort with the children researchers worked with the children to make crafts prior to engaging in the experimental task.

• Each Child tested individually.

• Children monitored for fatigue, anxiety, and stress

Procedure (Children; Video)

• Each child was told they would be watching videos of people doing different things

• Child told to pay attention because, following the video, they would be asked some questions and shown some pictures.

• Once the child was comfortable, the experimenter played the first video (human or cartoon)

• After viewing the video clip, the experimenter asked the child one free recall question about regarding video recall, “What did the cartoon character/person look like?”

• Following the response, the experimenter asked a probing question, “Do you remember anything else (from the video)?”

• If no response was provided, the experimenter asked again.

• The information provided by the child was recorded.

Procedure (Children; PowerPoint line-ups)

• After watching the video, the experimenter displayed the corresponding lineup (in PowerPoint) on a laptop to the child.

• The experimenter asked the child to identify the cartoon/person they saw in the video by pointing.

• The experimenter instructed the child that the person they saw may or may not be there and showed that, if the correct person was not there, they should point to the silhouette box.

• The experimenter recorded the child’s response.

• Following the identification, the procedure was repeated for the three additional videos, each time reminding the children that the cartoon/person may not be in the lineup.

Procedure (Children; End)

• After completing the study task, the children were thanked and given a small token (i.e. crayons and coloring book)

• The facilitator was responsible for entertaining the children while they waited to complete the experimental task.

Procedure (Adult; Pre-procedure/Video)

• Upon entering the lab, each participant given a short introduction to the study and provided with a consent form that explained they would be participating a study about memory

• Following the signing of the consent, participants told they would be watching short video clips.

• Participants asked to pay attention because following the video they would be asked some questions and shown pictures.
  
  

• After the first video, participants provided with a sheet asking a free recall question, “What did the cartoon character/person look like?”

• Question followed up with, “Do you remember anything else about the character/person?” Participant wrote down all they could remember about what they saw on the video.

Procedure (Adult; Power-point line-ups)

• After watching the video, the experimenter displayed the corresponding powerpoint lineup on a laptop to the participant.

• Participant asked to identify the cartoon or person they saw in the video if he or she was present by indicating their selection on a matching sheet.

• Participant informed the participant that the person they saw may not be there and demonstrated that, in this case, the participants should select the option that corresponds to the silhouette photograph in each lineup to reject it.

• Following that, the procedure was repeated for three more videos, each time with the same reminder.

• Following the completion of the video and lineups, participants given a demographic questionnaire assessing their familiarity with the cartoons shown.

• Participants debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results (Target-present lineups)

Key info:

Children correctly identified 23% of the human faces.

Children correctly identified 99% of the cartoon faces.

Adults correctly identified 66% of the human faces.

Adults correctly identified 95% of the cartoon faces.

Results (Target-absent line-ups)

KEY INFO:

Children correctly rejected human faces 45% of the time.

Children correctly rejected cartoon faces 74% of the time.

Adults correctly rejected human faces 70% of the time.

Adults correctly rejected cartoon faces 94% of the time.

Conclusions from the Data (Target Present)

• Children were significantly more accurate with a higher correct

  identification rate for cartoon faces.

• Adults were significantly more accurate with cartoon faces.

Conclusions from the Data (Target-absent)

• Both children and adults were significantly better at correctly rejecting

  the carton faces compared to the human faces.

• Children were significantly worse at correctly rejecting the human and

  cartoon faces compared to adults.

Conclusions based on the Results (Discussion)

• Results show that young children had lower correct identification and correct rejection rates for unfamiliar human faces compared to adults, a pattern consistent with previous research.

• Due to children being able to correctly identify cartoon characters in target-present line-ups, cognitive factors were not responsible for lower success rate in target-absent line-ups.

  • In the target-absent line-up, children had a significantly lower correct rejection rate for familiar cartoon characters than adults, indicating they are more prone to errors due to social pressure to select rather than faulty memory.

Findings of the study

• Suggest that young children’s false positive responses in target-absent lineups may be drive more by social factors rather than cognitive factors.

• Children are less accurate when faced with human actors and more likely to give false positive responses than adults.