Psychology, Crime & Law

Vol. 18, No. 5, June 2012, 473
490

Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification

accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial
memory strength
Brian H. Bornsteina, Kenneth A. Deffenbacherb, Steven D. Penrodc* and
E. Kiernan McGortya
a
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA; bDepartment of
Psychology, University of Nebraska
Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA; cDepartment of Psychology,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
(Received 6 April 2010; final version received 5 July 2010)

In the present study, we conducted two separate meta-analyses in order to

quantify the influence on facial identification accuracy of two variables related to
initial memory strength for an unfamiliar face, specifically, length of exposure at
the time of encounter and encoding operations as manipulated via stimulus
processing instructions. Proportion correct was significantly higher for longer
(M  0.66) as compared to shorter exposure durations (M  0.53) and when
participants made social judgments of faces (M  0.75) than when they attended
to individual facial features (M  0.71). The effect of increased exposure time was
non-linear, with comparable increases exerting a greater effect for relatively short
versus relatively long exposures. Neither substantive nor methodological variables
were found to moderate the effect of exposure duration, and only date of
publication appeared to moderate the effect of encoding operations. Theoretical
and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords: eyewitness; exposure duration; cognitive; memory; identification
accuracy

Introduction
Facial identification research is important not only because of its practical
applications, but also because of its relevance to psychological theory. The
applications are manifold and range from informing policy recommendations
regarding witness interviewing and lineup administration (e.g. Fisher & Schreiber,
2006; Koehnken, Malpass, & Wogalter, 1996; Malpass et al., 2008; Wells, Memon,
& Penrod, 2006; Wells et al., 1998) to the debate over the effectiveness of various
legal safeguards (Benton, McDonnell, Ross, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2007; Van
Wallandael, Devenport, Cutler, & Penrod, 2007). On the theoretical side, facial
identification research has the potential to advance understanding of a variety of
memory-related phenomena, including encoding, storage, and forgetting mechan-
isms (e.g. Clark, 2003, 2005; Clark & Godfrey, 2009; Deffenbacher, 1986, 1996;
Deffenbacher, Bornstein, McGorty, & Penrod, 2008; McQuiston-Surrett, Malpass,
& Tredoux, 2006).

*Corresponding author. Email: spenrod@jjay.cuny.edu

ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.508458
http://www.tandfonline.com
474 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Meta-analytic techniques, used both to investigate the effects of different

variables across studies of selected topics and to examine inconsistencies therein,
can speak to both the practical and theoretical issues. Indeed, a number of meta-
analyses of specific areas within the facial identification literature exist (see Penrod &
Bornstein, 2007, for review). Shapiro and Penrod (1986) conducted the first large-
scale quantitative assessment of the factors influencing facial identification. They
presented a meta-analysis of over 190 individual studies from 128 articles on face
recognition and eyewitness memory, spanning 960 experimental conditions and
including more than 16,950 participants. Subsequent facial identification meta-
analyses have focused on a diverse array of specific variables, such as sequential
versus simultaneous lineup presentation (McQuiston-Surrett et al., 2006; Steblay,
Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001), lineup instructions (Clark, 2005; Steblay, 1997),
the confidence
accuracy relationship (Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995), the
cross-race effect (Anthony, Copper, & Mullen, 1992; Meissner & Brigham, 2001),
witness age (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1998), weapon focus (Steblay, 1992), showups versus
lineups (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2003), heightened stress (Deffenbacher,
Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, 2004), retention interval (Deffenbacher et al., 2008),
and mugshot exposure (Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod, 2006).
Previous meta-analyses of the facial identification literature have not explored the
effect of cognitive processes relating to the strength of an eyewitness’s memory.
Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory for the face of a perpetrator
depends primarily on three pieces of information: an estimate of initial memory
strength, the retention interval (i.e. delay between the event, or encoding, and the
identification task, or retrieval), and the nature of the forgetting curve (Deffenbacher,
1996; Deffenbacher et al., 2008). A variety of witness, target, and situational factors
can influence initial memory strength. In the present paper we focus on two cognitive
processing variables likely to influence initial memory strength: exposure time and
encoding operations. A clearer understanding of how these variables affect initial
memory strength, in conjunction with knowledge of other relevant variables, such as
the retention interval, would enable more precise estimates of eyewitness identifica-
tion capabilities under various conditions (Deffenbacher, 1986; Deffenbacher et al.,
2008).
These processing/memory strength variables are ‘estimator’ variables, which are
not amenable to systematic manipulation but nonetheless predict individuals’
performance (as opposed to ‘system’ variables, such as lineup instructions, which
are under the control of the criminal justice system; see Wells, 1978). Nonetheless,
a better understanding of estimator variables is important also, for three principal
reasons (Bornstein & Robicheaux, 2009; Deffenbacher, 2008; Wells et al., 2006).
First, a knowledge of estimator variables can provide legal decision makers (e.g.
police, prosecutors, judges, juries) with information relevant to their assessment of a
witness’s credibility. Second, the effect of any given system variable can depend on
the level of one or more estimator variables. In other words, estimator variables can
serve as important moderators, a relationship that can be assessed by meta-analytic
techniques (e.g. Anthony et al., 1992; Bothwell, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, 1987;
Meissner & Brigham, 2001). A third reason for attending to estimator variables is
that trained or prepared witnesses (e.g. police officers, bank tellers) can exert a degree
of control over some estimator variables, such as encoding operations and exposure
time. Thus, although estimator variables related to how witnesses process an event
 Psychology, Crime & Law 475

are not amenable to system manipulation, there is good warrant for understanding
their effect on eyewitness performance.
The present meta-analysis will also permit a more detailed exploration of possible
moderating variables, such as the type of study paradigm (facial recognition or
eyewitness identification). A recent review by Penrod and Bornstein (2007) found
that although most variables exert similar effects in facial recognition and eyewitness
identification research paradigms, a number of factors (e.g. simultaneous vs
sequential lineup presentation, weapon focus, stress, the cross-race effect) exert
larger effects in more realistic methodologies. An exploration of such moderator
variables is essential not only to determining the generality of any effects, but also to
informing the debates over policy adoption and eyewitness expert testimony (e.g.
Benton et al., 2007; Lane & Meissner, 2008; Malpass et al., 2008; Penrod &
Bornstein, 2007). Research using a combination of relatively ‘basic’ and relatively
‘applied’ methodologies has the greatest potential to contribute to both psycholo-
gical theory about memory for faces and policy matters (Lane & Meissner, 2008).

Exposure time
Studies manipulating exposure time have generally found that longer exposure to
faces results in higher recognition accuracy than shorter exposure, presumably
because witnesses have a longer time to encode the information, thereby forming a
stronger initial memory trace (e.g. Memon, Hope, & Bull, 2003). In their study of a
large number of actual lineups conducted by the London Metropolitan Police,
Valentine, Pickering, and Darling (2003) found that witnesses exposed to the crime
perpetrator for a relatively long period of time (more than one min) were more likely
to identify the suspect than those exposed for a relatively brief period (less than
one min). Because these were real lineups, it is impossible to know whether the
suspect identifications were accurate; however, the researchers were able to assess the
frequency of known errors (i.e. foil identifications), which did not vary as a function
of exposure duration. Shapiro and Penrod (1986) found hit rates were higher, and
false alarms were lower, when participants viewed faces for a longer (Ms 0.69 and
0.34, respectively) as opposed to shorter time (Ms0.57 and 0.38, respectively), but
the effect was larger for hits (d 0.61) than for false alarms (d 0.22). Longer
exposure benefits recognition accuracy in children as well as adults, although there is
some evidence that the advantage of longer exposure increases with age (Ellis & Flin,
1990).
Most studies of exposure time use a very small number of exposure durations,
typically only two. Thus, they are unable to explore whether increases in exposure
duration exert a constant (i.e. linear) effect across the parameter of time; or whether
the effect is non-linear (e.g. with comparable increases producing greater benefit for
shorter versus longer exposures). By analyzing data across a large number of studies,
the present meta-analysis allows us to address this important question.

Encoding operations
Several studies have found that face recognition is better when individuals make
relatively holistic or trait-based judgments, as compared to more analytic, feature-
based judgments (e.g. Bower & Karlin, 1974; Olsson & Juslin, 1999). At least two
476 B.H. Bornstein et al.

processes underlie this difference in identification accuracy. First, making social

characterizations requires more elaborate processing, as compared to the shallower
processing involved in assessing physical attributes; and deeper, more elaborate,
holistic processing generally yields better memory (e.g. Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
Second, trait judgments (at encoding) and identification judgments (at retrieval) are
both types of holistic processing tasks that involve configural (as opposed to
featural) encoding; thus the typically obtained superiority of trait judgments also
reflects an encoding-specificity effect (Wells & Hryciw, 1984). For different types of
retrieval tasks (e.g. facial reconstruction), an encoding situation that made features
salient might be superior (Reynolds & Pezdek, 1992; Wells & Hryciw, 1984).
Although eyewitnesses occasionally are asked to reconstruct faces
for example,
in generating a sketch of the perpetrator
their role in the legal system most
commonly consists of identifying the perpetrator’s face. Thus, whether for encoding-
specificity or depth-of-encoding reasons, trait judgments at encoding should lead to
superior performance. Consistent with these speculations, Shapiro and Penrod (1986)
found hit rates were higher, and false alarms were lower, when participants received
instructions to make inferences about psychological traits of the targets (Ms 0.74,
0.21, respectively) than when participants received instructions to search for a
distinctive feature of the target (Ms  0.66, 0.27; d 0.97 for hits and d0.38 for
false alarms).

Study overview
Considerable research on facial identification has been conducted since the Shapiro
and Penrod (1986) meta-analysis (for recent reviews, see Clark & Godfrey, 2009;
Lindsay, Ross, Read, & Toglia, 2007; Wells et al., 2006). In the present study, we
update the earlier work by Shapiro and Penrod (1986) by presenting two separate
meta-analyses, one of the effects of exposure time and the other of the effects of
encoding operations on facial identification accuracy. This update is particularly
timely, because fully 76% of the studies in our meta-analysis sample of exposure time
manipulations have been published since 1986. Furthermore, even though only 20%
of our sample of studies with depth of encoding manipulations has been published
subsequent to Shapiro and Penrod’s meta-analysis, it appears that these more recent
studies show consistently smaller effect sizes than the studies published prior to 1986
(see Results, below).

Method
Sample
General sample characteristics
As part of a larger meta-analysis to update and extend the Shapiro and Penrod
(1986) findings, we conducted a thorough search of PsycINFO, Educational
Resources Information Center (ERIC), Sociological Abstracts, MEDLINE, and
the Social Science Citation Index to obtain experimental studies of face recognition
and eyewitness identification. These computer database searches were supplemented
with more traditional search methods, including use of bibliographic citations in
published research and in social science convention proceedings and contacting
 Psychology, Crime & Law 477

leading researchers. These procedures yielded an initial database of 469 studies

through 2002 (for more detail, see Deffenbacher et al., 2004, 2006). We extended our
search for more recent studies that manipulated the present variables of interest,
namely, encoding operations and exposure time.
To be included, studies needed to expose participants to (an) unknown person(s)
during an initial study/encoding phase, followed by a test/retrieval phase in which
participants made yes/no or old/new recognition judgments for a series of faces or
lineup(s), containing both previously seen (targets) and novel individuals (lures or
distractors). We excluded studies on the following grounds: those that employed
known/famous individuals; repeated faces during testing; used continuous (e.g.
ratings of how confident one was that a face had been seen previously) rather than
dichotomous (yes/no or old/new) recognition judgments; combined face and voice
recognition; or used unnaturalistic depictions of persons/faces (e.g. line drawings).
In addition, we included only published studies. Unpublished studies were not
included to prevent the analysis from becoming unwieldy, and because the legal
standards for proffered scientific testimony established by the US Supreme Court in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) have strengthened the courts’
preference for conclusions based on a body of well conceived, well executed, and
easily retrievable studies (Clark, 2005; Deffenbacher et al., 2004).

Coding
Studies were coded for several dozen variables, including witness and target (e.g. age,
sex, race), situational (e.g. exposure time, encoding operations, disguise), procedural
(e.g. testing instructions, lineup presentation), and methodological (e.g. face
recognition vs eyewitness identification paradigm) factors.1 When a quantitative
independent variable (e.g. exposure time) contained more than two levels, the two
most extreme values were coded. When a qualitative independent variable (e.g.
encoding instructions) contained more than two levels, we coded the most
theoretically and forensically interesting levels (i.e. trait vs feature judgments; see
Encoding operations, below). Inter-rater reliability tests using a subset of studies from
the original database (i.e. the 469 original studies) showed an average agreement rate
of 93% across the coded independent variables; disagreements were resolved through
discussion.

Exposure time
The exposure time sample included 33 independent estimates of effect size, from 25
articles. Nearly all of these manipulations varied the duration of a single exposure to
the target face(s), although an occasional study varied the number of times that
participants were exposed to the face(s) (e.g. Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, & MacLin,
2005). This sample included work published between 1970 and 2006, with a total of
2983 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 200 (M 90.39). The difference in
exposure times between long and short durations ranged from 0.7 to 3570 s (Mdn
difference 4.7 s; see Table 1 for a complete list of studies, effect sizes, and
differences in exposure duration in each study).
478 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Table 1. Effect sizes for proportion correct as a function of target face exposure duration.

Exposure difference Exposure

Study n z r (s) ratio

Scapinello & Yarmey (1970) 80 7.78 0.87 30 7.00

Wallace et al. (1970):
Experiment 1 200 2.40 0.24 2.5 3.00
Experiment 2 200 1.10 0.11 2.5 3.00
Laughery et al. (1971), Exp. 1 128 1.64 0.14 22 3.20
Malpass (1974) 64 0.25 0.03 4 5.00
Mueller et al. (1978) 72 3.29 0.39 10 3.00
Light et al. (1979), Exp. 2 64 2.21 0.39 5 2.67
McKelvie (1981), Exp. 2 88 3.29 0.35 4 5.00
Bruce & Valentine (1988) 102 2.24 0.22 10 2.00
Brigham (1990) 196 3.29 0.24 2 2.00
Ellis & Flin (1990):
Experiment 1 184 2.33 0.17 2 3.00
Experiment 2 153 3.29 0.26 4 3.00
Read et al. (1990):
Experiment 1 24 0.29 0.06 15 4.00
Experiment 2 24 2.58 0.52 15 4.00
Experiment 3 128 3.18 0.28 18 4.00
DiNardo & Rainey (1991) 80 2.81 0.32 3.5 3.33
Shepherd et al. (1991) 96 3.29 0.34 4 5.00
Reynolds & Pezdek (1992) 198 3.29 0.24 17 6.67
Beal et al. (1995):
Experiment 3, TP 32 0.35 0.06 90 2.00
Experiment 3, TA 32 0.00 0.00 90 2.00
Read (1995):
Experiment 1, TP 56 0.72 0.10 435 10.67
Experiment 1, TA 56 0.92 0.12 435 10.67
Gross & Hayne (1996) 34 3.70 0.64 3570 120.00
Busey et al. (2000), Exp. 1 108 5.60 0.54 0.80 5.00
MacLin et al. (2001), Exp. 1 64 2.58 0.32 4.5 10.00
Shaw et al. (2001):
Experiment 2 40 1.65 0.26 4 3.00
Experiment 3 40 2.24 0.36 4 3.00
Memon et al. (2003):
TP 82 5.38 0.60 33 3.75
TA 82 3.81 0.42 33 3.75
Weber & Brewer (2004), Exp. 1 48 4.44 0.64 0.70 4.04
Meissner et al. (2005), Exp. 1 96 3.29 0.34 3 2.00
Nega (2005) 96 2.80 0.28 4.7 16.67
Semmler & Brewer (2006), Exp. 1 36 3.29 0.55 1.3 7.50
Notes. Exposure difference is the difference between the longer and shorter target face exposure durations
employed in a particular experimental condition. Exposure Ratio is the ratio of the longer to the
shorter exposure duration used in a particular experimental condition. TP, target-present lineup; TA,
target-absent lineup.
 Psychology, Crime & Law 479

Encoding operations
Studies have manipulated encoding operations in diverse ways. The largest number of
studies compared the effect of instructing participants to make some sort of social
(e.g. trait) judgment, as compared to attending to one or more discrete features. This
comparison is both theoretically and forensically relevant. It derives directly from
levels-of-processing theory, in that social judgments are relatively ‘deep’ and holistic,
whereas feature judgments are relatively ‘shallow’ and feature-based (Craik &
Lockhart, 1972). From a forensic perspective, both conditions are quite naturalistic.
Humans process faces in a variety of ways, including the formation of social/
personality inferences and attention to individual, distinctive features (Bruce,
Burton, & Hancock, 2007; Farah, Wilson, Drain, & Tanaka, 1998).
The present sample included 34 independent estimates of effect size, from 26
articles. This sample included work published between 1974 and 1999, with a total of
2033 participants. Sample sizes across the 34 studies ranged from 12 to 331
(M59.79; see Table 2 for a complete list of studies).
Several other studies compared social judgments versus other kinds of relatively
shallow encoding instructions or versus no instructions. We have omitted these
studies because the ‘shallow’ instructions varied widely and at times involved an
attention-distracting task, and because it is impossible to know what kind of
processing participants performed in the absence of instructions. These task
characteristics make comparisons involving such manipulations difficult. Several
other studies compared intentional versus incidental encoding instructions. We have
omitted such studies as well, for two reasons. First, it is relatively rare in real forensic
contexts for witnesses to know that their memory will be tested later. Second,
because participants in an incidental encoding condition could be engaging in any
sort of processing (including intentional encoding), it does not provide a clean
comparison.2

Results
Dependent variables recorded were hit, false alarm, and miss rates, when provided
(or calculable) for target-present (TP) lineups; correct rejection and false alarm rates
when provided for target-absent (TA) lineups; and overall proportion correct. To
have the same metric across studies, and because relatively few studies included both
TP and TA lineups, we converted hit and false alarm measures to proportion
correct.3
We used z as the primary effect size measure for differences between proportions
correct, but we also converted z to Pearson’s r for comparability to other meta-
analyses (see Tables 1 and 2). The rs were then normalized and averaged to obtain the
overall mean effect sizes. We also report the value of Cohen’s d associated with each
mean effect size. For testing the significance of an estimate of typical effect size found
in a particular meta-analysis, we followed the recommendation of Rosenthal and
DiMatteo (2002) to use one-tailed, one-sample t-tests. This choice provided us with
a random effects test permitting generalization to other studies from the same
population from which the retrieved studies were sampled and provided a test which
is generally more conservative than the more commonly used Stouffer’s Z test.
480 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Table 2. Effect sizes for proportion correct as a function of encoding operations: trait versus
feature judgments.

Study n z r

Bower & Karlin (1974):

Experiment 1 12 3.29 0.95
Experiment 2 12 3.29 0.95
Experiment 3 12 1.96 0.57
Warrington & Ackroyd (1975) 40 0.34 0.05
Winograd (1976) 72 1.18 0.14
Patterson & Baddeley (1977), Exp. 1 36 2.24 0.37
Strnad & Mueller (1977) 40 0.00 0.00
Mueller et al. (1978):
Experiment 1 48 1.65 0.24
Experiment 2 30 2.24 0.41
Smith & Winograd (1978) 144 2.81 0.23
Courtois & Mueller (1979):
Comparison 1 32 1.96 0.35
Comparison 2 32 1.96 0.35
Nowicki et al. (1979), Exp. 2 76 1.53 0.18
Mueller & Wherry (1980) 60 3.89 0.50
Daw & Parkin (1981) 36 0.51 0.08
Mueller et al. (1981):
Experiment 1 60 1.96 0.25
Experiment 2 64 1.96 0.24
Memon & Bruce (1983):
Experiment 1 24 0.03 0.01
Experiment 2 40 0.16 0.03
Parkin & Goodwin (1983) 32 0.16 0.03
Parkin & Hayward (1983):
Experiment 1 16 0.00 0.00
Experiment 2 20 0.00 0.00
Wells & Hryciw (1984) 80 2.03 0.23
Devine & Malpass (1985) 32 2.24 0.40
McKelvie (1985) 40 0.20 0.03
Pigott & Brigham (1985) 120 1.19 0.11
Valentine & Bruce (1986), Exp. 3 32 0.24 0.04
McKelvie (1991) 32 0.10 0.02
Sporer (1991) 62 2.51 0.32
Reynolds & Pezdek (1992), Exp. 2 80 2.33 0.26
Terry (1993):
Experiment 1 80 0.40 0.04
Experiment 2 86 2.81 0.30
Berman & Cutler (1998), Exp. 2 120 0.12 0.01
Olsson & Juslin (1999) 331 2.06 0.11
 Psychology, Crime & Law 481

Finally, we report the effect sizes for both unweighted means and means weighted by
sample size.
In instances where a test of the hypothesis was reported as not statistically
significant, but no statistics were cited, we followed the conservative procedure of
entering a z of zero (this procedure, which was necessary for relatively few studies,
likely underestimates the true effect size; see Rosenthal, 1995). In order to provide
estimates of the reliability of our meta-analytic effect size estimates, we have
calculated the 95% confidence interval (CI) in each case and the fail-safe N (Nfs),
which represents the number of unknown or not retrieved studies averaging null
results that would be required to increase the probability of a Type I error to the just
significant level of p0.05 (Rosenthal, 1995).

Exposure time
Mean proportion correct was higher for longer (M 0.66) than for shorter exposure
durations (M0.53). The unweighted mean effect size was an r of 0.325 (d0.69),
t(32) 6.74, p B0.0005, CI 0.23
0.41, Nfs 2718 studies. The weighted mean
effect size was very similar, r0.30 (d 0.63), t(32) 6.00, p B0.0005, 95%
CI 0.21 to 0.39. Finally, the median effect size was 0.285.
The test for the heterogeneity of effect size variance across the sample was not
statistically significant, x2 (32) 8.43, p0.05. We nonetheless conducted a couple
of moderator analyses of theoretical and practical significance. The first moderator
analysis compared effect sizes for studies with relatively large differences in duration
between longer and shorter exposure times (i.e. for 16 studies with an above the
median difference of 4.7 s), versus studies with relatively small differences in duration
between longer and shorter exposure times (i.e. for 16 studies below the median
difference). The effect sizes were almost identical: mean r0.33 for large differences
vs r0.32 for small differences. Both effect sizes were significantly different from
zero by a one-sample t-test (ps B 0.005), but not from each other. Clearly, absolute
size of the difference between longer and shorter face exposure times does not predict
effect size differences in face identification accuracy.
On the other hand, the ratio of longer to shorter exposure time does a better job
of predicting effect size for identification accuracy, but only up to a point. If one
combines effect sizes for studies (n15) in which the ratio of longer to shorter
exposure time was 2:1 or 3:1, the average effect size was r 0.23. Combining effect
sizes for studies (n10) wherein the ratio was 4:1 or 5:1 resulted in a larger average
effect size, r0.36. The mean effect size for the three studies with exposure duration
ratios of 7:1 or 8:1 was even larger, r0.62. However, the single study with a
duration ratio of 10:1 had an effect size of just 0.32; two studies with duration ratios
of 11:1 displayed an average effect size of
0.02; and a single study with a ratio of
17:1 produced an effect size of 0.28. Finally, the study with both the largest absolute
difference in exposure duration (3570 s) and the largest ratio of longer to shorter
exposure times (120:1) yielded an effect size of 0.64. We offer an explanation for this
peculiar pattern of results in the Discussion section.
The second moderator analysis compared eyewitness identification (n9) to face
recognition studies (n 24). Again, both effect sizes were significantly different from
zero, but not from each other (r0.26 and 0.35, respectively).
482 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Finally, although there were only three studies wherein exposure time was
manipulated as well as type of lineup (TP vs TA), there is suggestive evidence that
increased target exposure time at encoding may benefit face identification more in
TP than in TA lineups. The unweighted mean effect size for increased face encoding
time in TP lineups was r0.24 (d0.49), as compared to r0.11 (d 0.22) for TA
lineups.

Encoding operations
Proportion correct was higher when participants made social judgments of faces
(M0.75) than when participants focused on individual facial features (M 0.71).
The unweighted mean effect size was an r of 0.25 (d 0.52), t(33) 3.33, p B0.005,
CI 0.10
0.39, Nfs 551 studies. The weighted mean effect size was somewhat
smaller but still statistically significant, r0.16 (d0.32), t(33)  2.08, p B0.025,
CI 0.01
0.31.
The test for the heterogeneity of effect size variance across the sample was not
statistically significant, x2(33) 41.25, p 0.05. As with exposure duration, we
nonetheless considered conducting moderator analyses of potential interest. A
moderator analysis comparing eyewitness identification studies and face recognition
studies was not possible, due to there being only two studies that had been conducted
within the eyewitness identification paradigm. Following up an apparent trend in
Table 2, however, we conducted a moderator analysis on the date of publication of
studies. Average effect size for 27 pre-1986 studies (the date of Shapiro & Penrod’s
meta-analysis) was r 0.29, t(26)  3.25, p B0.005. For seven post-1986 studies, the
mean effect size was r0.08, t(6) 1.04, p0.05. Although the former effect size
was significantly greater than zero and the latter was not, a direct comparison did not
show these two effect sizes to be significantly different, t(32) 0.50, p 0.05.

Discussion
As did the results of Shapiro and Penrod’s (1986) meta-analysis, nearly 25 years later
our meta-analytic results likewise confirm that there is a statistically reliable
association between facial identification accuracy and two variables related to initial
memory strength, exposure time and encoding operations. Specifically, relatively
long exposure durations to a target face(s) produce greater accuracy than relatively
short exposure durations, and relatively deep encoding operations (i.e. social
judgments) produce greater accuracy than relatively shallow encoding operations
(i.e. feature judgments). Our analyses show that mean effect size was somewhat larger
for exposure duration than for encoding operations, especially when taking sample
size into account, but was in the medium range for both meta-analyses, with ds in
the range of 0.50
0.70. Moreover, for none of our analyses did the 95% confidence
interval for r include zero, and the number of studies with null results required to
reverse the findings was substantial, greater than 500 in each instance. Thus, the
main effects for these variables appear to be quite robust.
There are modest differences between our findings and those of Shapiro and
Penrod (1986), however. Averaging d values for hits (proportion correct detections)
and correct rejections (1
false alarm rate) in their study in order to provide a
statistic comparable to our d values associated with proportion correct, we note that
 Psychology, Crime & Law 483

we found a larger effect size for exposure duration. Cohen’s d in the present instance
was 0.69 but was 0.42 in Shapiro and Penrod’s analysis, the effect size being 64%
larger in our analysis. Conversely, we report a 24% smaller effect size for encoding
operations (d 0.52 vs 0.68). These differences in findings mean that the relative
strength of the two effect sizes has reversed over the last two decades: Shapiro and
Penrod found a noticeably stronger effect for encoding operations than for exposure
duration, whereas we found a slightly greater effect for exposure duration. Consistent
with this pattern, the effect size for encoding operations has diminished in more
recent studies. The reduction likely reflects methodological variations not captured
by the present meta-analysis, but with only seven post-1986 studies included in our
sample, it was not at all clear what key variation(s) might be. More research
manipulating cognitive operations
especially research in the more naturalistic
eyewitness identification paradigm
is needed to explore the underlying causes of
this apparent time effect.
Our moderator analyses suggest that the effects of both exposure time and
encoding operations do not differ across substantive or procedural variations. In the
case of exposure time, the results show that although there is a benefit to a somewhat
longer exposure, increasing exposure time still further yields little, if any, advantage.
In other words, the effect of exposure time on memory for faces is nonlinear. We
adduce further support for this interpretation in the Theoretical implications section,
below, and note that Shapiro and Penrod (1986) found significant quadratic as well
as linear effects in their analyses of the relation between exposure duration and
measures of face recognition accuracy (namely, hits, false alarms, and d’). As well,
Ellis, Davies, and Shepherd (1977) found a log
linear relation between face
recognition accuracy and exposure times of four s or fewer. However, plotting their
results in strictly linear coordinates yields a negatively accelerated curve for the
growth in resistance to forgetting as a function of increases in exposure time.
Increases in exposure duration for the unfamiliar face, at least up to a point, then,
have the effect of increasing initial memory strength. Deffenbacher (1986, Figure 1)
provided a demonstration of this point. He compared two face recognition studies
whose empirical forgetting functions are fit very nicely by the same theoretical
function. The most obvious difference between the two forgetting functions is that
the y-intercept of one is noticeably greater. It just so happens that the face exposure
duration for the study with the greater y-intercept was 15 s, and that for the other
study was just three s. Estimated initial memory strength in the former case
corresponded to a d’ value of 3.26 but was only 1.97 in the latter instance.
Although a number of meta-analyses in the facial identification domain have
found a moderating influence of research paradigm (Penrod & Bornstein, 2007),
others have not (e.g. Deffenbacher et al., 2008). Those studies that have found a
moderating effect have found that the effect of substantive or procedural variables is
larger in the more naturalistic eyewitness paradigm (Penrod & Bornstein, 2007).
Importantly, no meta-analysis of which we are aware has found statistically reliable
effects that are smaller for more ecologically valid research, and the present findings
are consistent with that conclusion. This state of affairs increases the confidence with
which policy makers and expert witnesses can generalize from laboratory studies to
the real world of eyewitness behavior (Penrod & Bornstein, 2007). It is important to
conduct laboratory studies of face recognition, in conjunction with more naturalistic
484 B.H. Bornstein et al.

eyewitness studies, for purposes of theory development/testing as well as policy

adoption (Lane & Meissner, 2008).

Theoretical implications
In order to make a proper assessment of the strength of an eyewitness’s memory
representation at the time of the identification, a trier of fact needs to have an
estimate of the witness’s initial memory strength for the perpetrator’s face, know the
length of the retention interval, and understand the nature of the forgetting function
(Deffenbacher et al., 2008). The retention interval (the delay between witnessing
a crime and engaging in an identification task) can usually be specified with some
precision, and the precise nature of the forgetting function can also be estimated
reasonably well (Deffenbacher et al., 2008); what remains, then, is to obtain an
estimate of the eyewitness’s initial memory strength.
Exposure time and encoding operations are two important situational determi-
nants of initial memory strength. We do not claim that they are the only relevant
variables; other situational variables, such as degree of attention or intention to
remember, distance, and lighting, will influence initial memory strength as well.
Many of these factors have been studied experimentally (e.g. Buckhout, 1974;
Deffenbacher, 2008; Deffenbacher et al., 2004; Lindsay, Read, & Sharma, 1998; Wells
et al., 2006); however, their relationship to memory strength has not been explored
systematically, and it is unclear whether that relationship is direct or indirect (e.g. the
relationship between attention and initial memory strength could be mediated by any
number of factors, some of which implicate encoding operations). The advantage of
studying encoding operations and exposure time is that these are relatively direct,
face valid indicators of memory strength, where the primary underlying mechanism

depth of encoding
is capable of experimental manipulation and under the
observer’s control (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
As we noted previously, the results of our moderator analysis suggest a nonlinear
effect of exposure time on facial identification accuracy. Further support for this
explanation comes from a closer inspection of the exposure times used in the various
studies. Twenty-eight of the 33 studies had what we classify as ‘short’ shorter
durations, ranging from a few tenths of a second to 12 s, and longer durations of no
more than 45 s. Twenty-five of these 28 studies showed strong positive effect sizes,
with rs ranging from 0.14 to 0.87 (the other three had effect sizes of
0.03, 0.06, and
0.11). Four of the remaining five studies had what we classify as ‘long’ shorter
durations of 45
90 s, and longer durations of 180
480 s. The effect sizes for these
four studies were negligible:
0.12,
0.06, 0.00, and 0.10. This pattern of findings
suggests that the benefit of added exposure time is greatest at the low end of the
distribution, up to approximately 30 s. Once the exposure time for a briefly presented
face exceeds 30 s or so, any further increase would have to be quite substantial to
produce a further improvement in performance.
Support for this view comes not only from the studies with ‘long’ shorter
durations, but also from the study that used the longest longer duration. Gross and
Hayne (1996) compared exposure times of 30 s versus 3600 s (one h), a very
considerable difference in exposure duration, producing a very large ratio (120:1)
of longer to shorter exposure durations. Consistent with our explanation, it yielded a
very large effect size of 0.64. Yet at longer ‘short’ exposure durations, that is the kind
 Psychology, Crime & Law 485

of increase that would be necessary to produce much of an effect. This explanation

also comports with the analysis of exposure duration ratios presented earlier,
according to which greater increases in exposure yielded larger effects, but only up to
a point.
No studies manipulated both exposure time and encoding operations.4 We expect
that relatively deep (versus shallow) encoding would help most at moderate exposure
durations, on the order of 5
30 s. At very brief exposure intervals, deeper processing
would not have time to take effect; whereas at long exposure intervals, observers
might well begin to engage in deeper processing, even in the absence of instructions
to do so. This prediction is admittedly speculative and calls for a direct experimental
test.

Practical implications
As indicated earlier, the trier of fact needs three pieces of information to make a
reasonable assessment of the strength of the eyewitness’s memory representation at
the time of the identification. The length of the witness’s retention interval is usually
not much in doubt, and Deffenbacher et al. (2008) have adduced considerable
support for a particular theoretical forgetting function for an unfamiliar face. There
remains only the need for an estimate of the eyewitness’s initial memory strength. As
Deffenbacher et al. have pointed out, results of a field experiment by Pigott,
Brigham, and Bothwell (1990) provide us with a conservative estimate of initial
memory strength, one likely to represent an upper bound on initial memory strength
for many forensic situations, given the close to optimal witnessing conditions in the
Pigott et al. study. This estimate is expressed in d’ units, with d’ 1.79, equivalent to
67% correct on a seven-alternative, forced-choice recognition memory task (six
lineup members plus the alternative of rejecting the entire lineup). With the initial
memory strength estimate in hand, predicted memory strength at various retention
intervals can be estimated. For instance, the predicted strength at 1 week for Pigott
et al.’s witnesses was a d’ of 1.24, equivalent to a probability of 0.49 of making a
correct identification.
To the extent that one or more of the optimal conditions for the Pigott et al.
(1990) study were not met in any given forensic situation
an exposure of the
perpetrator’s face for but a few seconds rather than the 1.5 min exposure time for
Pigott et al.’s witnesses, for example
then the predicted initial memory strength for
the eyewitness should be less than the figure corresponding to a performance level of
67% correct in the case of the Florida bank tellers in Pigott et al.’s field experiment.
As another guide to the effects of increased encoding time for an unfamiliar face, we
also have the observation by Deffenbacher (1986) that viewing a face for 15 s rather
than 3 s can result in better than a 50% advantage in initial memory strength.
The present findings suggest that eyewitnesses should be questioned closely about
how long they viewed the perpetrator and the type of processing they engaged in
while doing so. Such retrospective judgments, especially regarding event duration,
are not entirely reliable (e.g. Orchard & Yarmey, 1995) and are subject to distortion
(Douglass & Steblay, 2006; Wells & Bradfield, 1998); they should therefore be taken
prior to any post-identification feedback and should be corroborated by outside
evidence, insofar as possible (encoding operations cannot be easily corroborated, but
exposure time can be).
486 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Like all estimator variables, exposure time and encoding operations are beyond
the legal system’s control. Nonetheless, the present findings can be used to improve
eyewitness performance by informing the training of those likely to become ‘repeat
players’ in the eyewitness arena, such as law enforcement officers, bank tellers, and
convenience store clerks. Although these individuals cannot do much to control how
long they are able to view a perpetrator, they do have control over the type of
processing they engage in during that interval. Their training should emphasize
processing the perpetrator’s face holistically, and making social judgments about
the perpetrator, rather than focusing on discrete facial features. Such training could
employ role-playing exercises in which trainees experiment with different processing
styles during routine encounters, after which they attempt to make identifications.

Conclusions
The present meta-analyses suggest that two encoding variables associated with initial
memory strength
exposure time and encoding operations
significantly predict
facial identification accuracy. Specifically, longer exposure and deeper, more holistic
processing lead to better performance. The effect of increased exposure time is
nonlinear, with increases of the same magnitude having a greater effect at relatively
short, compared to relatively long, starting durations. Substantive and methodolo-
gical variables, such as the type of research paradigm, do not moderate these effects
to a significant degree. These findings have theoretical implications for theories
of face recognition, as well as practical implications for evaluating the credibility of
eyewitnesses and training individuals with a higher-than-normal probability of
becoming eyewitnesses.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Award # SES-0010140 from the National Science Foundation
to the first author. We are grateful for the research assistance of Meera Adya and Valerie
Franssen, and for comments on an earlier draft by Don Read.

Notes
1. A copy of the codebook is available from the authors.
2. We did explore whether alerting participants to the fact that their memory would be tested
later moderated the effect of exposure duration. It did not.
3. In one or two studies we could use only the hit rate, as no false alarm data were reported.
4. One article (Reynolds & Pezdek, 1992) included both variables, but they were manipulated
in separate experiments.

References
*Used in meta-analysis on encoding operations; $used in meta-analysis on exposure time.
Anthony, T., Copper, C., & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross-racial facial identification: A social
cognitive integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296
301.
Beal, C.R., Schmitt, K.L., & Dekle, D.J. (1995). Eyewitness identification of children: Effects
of absolute judgments, nonverbal response options, and event encoding. Law and Human
Behavior, 19, 197
216$.
 Psychology, Crime & Law 487

Benton, T.R., McDonnell, S., Ross, D.F., Thomas, W.N., & Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has
eyewitness research penetrated the American legal system? A synthesis of case history, juror
knowledge, and expert testimony. In R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia
(Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 453
500).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berman, G.L., & Cutler, B.L. (1998). The influence of processing instructions at encoding and
retrieval on face recognition accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 4, 89
106*.
Bornstein, B.H., & Robicheaux, T.R. (2009). Methodological issues in the study of eyewitness
memory and arousal. Creighton Law Review, 42, 525
547.
Bothwell, R.K., Deffenbacher, K.A., & Brigham, J.C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness
accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
691
695.
Bower, G.H., & Karlin, M.B. (1974). Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 751
757*.
Brigham, J.C. (1990). Target person distinctiveness and attractiveness as moderator variables
in the confidence
accuracy relationship in eyewitness identifications. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 11, 101
115$.
Bruce, V., Burton, M., & Hancock, P. (2007). Remembering faces. In R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F.
Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. 2): Memory
for people (pp. 87
100). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruce, V., & Valentine, T. (1988). When a nod’s as good as a wink: The role of
dynamic information in facial information. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N.
Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 169
174).
Chichester: Wiley$.
Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231, 23
31.
Busey, T.A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G.R., & Loftus, E.F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence

accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 26
48$.
Clark, S.E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629
654.
Clark, S.E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness
identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 395
424.
Clark, S.E., & Godfrey, R.D. (2009). Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 22
42.
Courtois, M.R., & Mueller, J.H. (1979). Processing multiple physical features in facial
recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 74
76*.
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671
684.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Daw, P.S., & Parkin, A.J. (1981). Observations on the efficiency of the two different
processing strategies for remembering faces. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 35, 351

355*.
Deffenbacher, K.A. (1986). On the memorability of the human face. In H.D. Ellis, M.A.
Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A.W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 61
70).
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Deffenbacher, K.A. (1996). Updating the scientific validity of three key estimator variables
in eyewitness testimony. In D. Herrmann, C. McEvoy, C. Hertzog, P. Hertel, & M.K.
Johnson (Eds.), Basic and applied memory research: Theory in context (pp. 421
438).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deffenbacher, K.A. (2008). Estimating the impact of estimator variables on eyewitness
identification: A fruitful marriage of practical problem solving and psychological
theorizing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 815
826.
Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., & Penrod, S.D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects:
Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, and unconscious transference. Law and
Human Behavior, 30, 287
307.
Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., Penrod, S.D., & McGorty, E.K. (2004). A meta-analytic
review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28,
687
706.
488 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., Penrod, S.D., & McGorty, E.K. (2008). Forgetting the
once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139
150.
Devine, P.S., & Malpass, R.S. (1985). Orienting strategies in differential face recognition.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 33
40*.
Douglass, A.B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of
the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859
869.
DiNardo, L., & Rainey, D. (1991). The effects of illumination level and exposure time on facial
recognition. Psychological Record, 41, 329
335$.
Ellis, H.D., Davies, G.M., & Shepherd, J.W. (1977). Experimental studies of face identification.
National Journal of Criminal Defense, 3, 219
234.
Ellis, H.D., & Flin, R.H. (1990). Encoding and storage effects in 7-year-olds’ and 10-year-olds’
memory for faces. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 77
92$.
Farah, M.J., Wilson, K.D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J.N. (1998). What is ‘special’ about face
perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482
498.
Fisher, R.P., & Schreiber, N. (2006). Interview protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In
M.P. Toglia, J.D. Read, D.F. Ross, & R.C.L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness
psychology, (Vol. 1): Memory for events (pp. 53
80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1996). Eyewitness identification by 5- to 6-year-old children. Law and
Human Behavior, 20, 359
373$.
Koehnken, G., Malpass, R.S., & Wogalter, M.S. (1996). Forensic applications of line-up
research. In S.L. Sporer, R.S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in
eyewitness identification (pp. 205
231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lane, S.M., & Meissner, C.A. (2008). A ‘middle road’ approach to bridging the basic
applied
divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779
787.
Laughery, K.R., Alexander, J.F., & Lane, A.B. (1971). Recognition of human faces: effects of
target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 477
483$.
Light, L.L., Kayra-Stuart, F., & Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and
unusual faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 212

228$.
Lindsay, D., Read, J., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification:
The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science,
9, 215
218.
Lindsay, R.C.L., Ross, D.F., Read, J.D., & Toglia, M.P. (2007). Handbook of eyewitness
psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacLin, O.H., MacLin, M.K., & Malpass, R.S. (2001). Race, arousal, attention, exposure,
and delay: An examination of factors moderating face recognition. Psychology, Public
Policy & Law, 7, 134
152$.
Malpass, R.S. (1974). Racial bias in eyewitness identification. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 1, 42
44$.
Malpass, R.S., Tredoux, C.G., Compo, N.S., McQuiston-Surrett, D., MacLin, O.H.,
Zimmerman, L.A. et al. (2008). Study space analysis for policy development. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 22, 789
801.
McKelvie, S.J. (1981). Sex differences in memory for faces. Journal of Psychology, 107, 109

125$.
McKelvie, S.J. (1985). Effect of depth of processing on recognition memory for normal and
inverted photographs of faces. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 60, 503
508*.
McKelvie, S.J. (1991). Effects of processing strategy and transformation on recognition
memory for photographs of faces. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 98
100*.
McQuiston-Surrett, D.E., Malpass, R.S., & Tredoux, C.G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous
lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology. Public Policy & Law, 12, 137

169.
Meissner, C.A., & Brigham, J.C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in
memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 7, 3
35.
 Psychology, Crime & Law 489

Meissner, C.A., Tredoux, C.G., Parker, J.F., & MacLin, O.H. (2005). Investigating the
phenomenological basis for eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups:
A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783
792$.
Memon, A., & Bruce, V. (1983). The effects of encoding strategy and context change on face
recognition. Human Learning, 2, 313
326*.
Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy
and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339
354$.
Mueller, J.H., Carlomusto, M., & Goldstein, A.G. (1978). Orienting task and study time in
facial recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 313
316*$.
Mueller, J.H., Courtois, M.R., & Bailis, K.L. (1981). Self-reference in facial recognition.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 85
88*.
Mueller, J.H., & Wherry, K.L. (1980). Orienting strategies at study and test in facial
recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 107
117*.
Nega, C. (2005). Perceptual effects and recollective experience in face recognition. Experi-
mental Psychology, 52, 224
231$.
Nowicki, S., Winograd, E., & Millard, B.A. (1979). Memory for faces: A social learning
analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 460
468*.
Olsson, N., & Juslin, P. (1999). Can self-reported encoding strategy and recognition skill be
diagnostic of performance in eyewitness identifications? Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 42
49*.
Orchard, T.L., & Yarmey, A.D. (1995). The effects of whispers, voice-sample duration, and
voice distinctiveness on criminal speaker identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9,
249
260.
Parkin, A.J., & Goodwin, E. (1983). The influence of different processing strategies on the
recognition of transformed and untransformed faces. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37,
272
277*.
Parkin, A.J., & Hayward, C. (1983). The influence of trait and physical-feature-based orienting
strategies in aspects of facial memory. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 71
82*.
Patterson, K.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 406
417*.
Penrod, S.D., & Bornstein, B.H. (2007). Generalizing eyewitness reliability research. In R.C.L.
Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology
(Vol. 2): Memory for people (pp. 529
556). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pigott, M.A., & Brigham, J.C. (1985). Relationships between accuracy of prison description
and facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 547
555*.
Pigott, M.A., Brigham, J.C., & Bothwell, R.K. (1990). A field study on the relationship
between quality of eyewitnesses’ descriptions and identification accuracy. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 17, 84
88.
Pozzulo, J.D., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults:
A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549
570.
Read, J.D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading
consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91

121$.
Read, J.D., Vokey, J.R., & Hammersley, R. (1990). Changing photos of faces: Effects of
exposure duration and photo similarity on recognition and the accuracy
confidence rela-
tionship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 870
882$.
Reynolds, J.K., & Pezdek, K. (1992). Race recognition memory: The effects of exposure
duration and encoding instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 279
292*$.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183
192.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M.R. (2002). Meta-analysis. In H. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.),
Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 4: Methodology in experimental
psychology (pp. 391
428). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Scapinello, K.F., & Yarmey, A.D. (1970). The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate
and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 21, 329
330$.
Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2006). Postidentification feedback effects on face recognition
confidence: Evidence for metacognitive influences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 895

916$.
490 B.H. Bornstein et al.

Shapiro, P.N., & Penrod, S.D. (1986). A meta-analysis of facial identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139
156.
Shaw, J.S., McClure, K.A., & Wilkens, C.E. (2001). Recognition instructions and recognition
practice can alter the confidence
response time relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 93
103$.
Shepherd, J.W., Gibling, F., & Ellis, H.D. (1991). The effects of distinctiveness, presentation
time and delay on face recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 137
145$.
Smith, A.D., & Winograd, E. (1978). Adult age differences in remembering faces. Develop-
mental Psychology, 14, 443
444*.
Sporer, S.L. (1991). Deep
Deeper
Deepest? Encoding strategies and the recognition of
human faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. Cognition, 17, 323

333*.
Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S.D., Read, J.D., & Cutler, B.L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and
accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence
accuracy relationship in eyewitness identifica-
tion studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315
327.
Steblay, N.M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human
Behavior, 16, 413
424.
Steblay, N.M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup
instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283
297.
Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R.C. L (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in
sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and
Human Behavior, 25, 459
473.
Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in
police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human
Behavior, 27, 523
540.
Strnad, B.N., & Mueller, J.H. (1977). Levels of processing in facial recognition memory.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 17
18*.
Terry, R.L. (1993). How wearing eyeglasses affects facial recognition. Current Psychology:
Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 12, 151
162*.
Valentine, T., & Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race, inversion, and encoding activity upon face
recognition. Acta Psychologica, 61, 259
273*.
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification
that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969
994.
Van Wallandael, L.R., Devenport, J., Cutler, B.L., & Penrod, S.D. (2007). Mistaken
identification  erroneous conviction? Assessing and improving legal safeguards. In
R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness
psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 557
572). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wallace, G., Coltheart, M., & Forster, K.I. (1970). Reminiscence in recognition memory for
faces. Psychonomic Science, 18, 335
336$.
Warrington, E.K., & Ackroyd, C. (1975). The effect of orienting tasks on recognition memory.
Memory & Cognition, 3, 140
142*.
Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence
accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face
recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156
172$.
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., & Bradfield, A.L. (1998). ‘Good, you identified the suspect’: Feedback to
eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 360
376.
Wells, G.L., & Hryciw, B. (1984). Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations.
Memory & Cognition, 12, 338
344*.
Wells, G.L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S.D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative
value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45
75.
Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S.D., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., & Brimacombe, C.A.E.
(1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photo-
spreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603
647.
Winograd, E. (1976). Recognition memory for faces following nine different judgments.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 419
421*.
Copyright of Psychology, Crime & Law is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.