Improving forensic perpetrator identification with Super-Recognizers.

About a decade ago, Super-Recognizers (SRs) were first described as individuals with exceptional face identity processing abilities. Since then, various tests have been developed or adapted to assess individuals' abilities and identify SRs. The extant literature suggests that SRs may be beneficial in police tasks requiring individual identification. However, in reality, the performance of SRs has never been examined using authentic forensic material. This not only limits the external validity of test procedures used to identify SRs, but also claims concerning their deployment in policing. Here, we report the first-ever investigation of SRs' ability to identify perpetrators using authentic case material. We report the data of 73 SRs and 45 control participants. These include (a) performance on three challenging tests of face identity processing recommended by Ramon (2021) for SR identification; (b) performance for perpetrator identification using four CCTV sequences depicting five perpetrators and police line-ups created for criminal investigation purposes. Our findings demonstrate that the face identity processing tests used here are valid in measuring such abilities and identifying SRs. Moreover, SRs excel at perpetrator identification relative to control participants, with more correct perpetrator identifications, the better their performance across lab tests. These results provide external validity for the recently proposed diagnostic framework and its tests used for SR identification (Ramon, 2021). This study provides the first empirical evidence that SRs identified using these measures can be beneficial for forensic perpetrator identification. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for law enforcement, whose procedures can be improved via a human-centric approach centered around individuals with superior abilities.

From Which Direction Does the Empire Strike (Back)?

In cultures with left-right-script, agentic behavior is mentally represented as following a left-to-right trajectory, an effect referred to as the Spatial Agency Bias (SAB, Suitner and Maass, 2016). In this research, we investigated whether spatial representations of activities are universal across activities by analyzing the opposite concepts of "attack" and "defense". Both behaviors involve similar actions (e.g., fighting) but may differ in perceived agency. Moreover "defense" is necessarily always a response to an attack and may therefore be represented by a trajectory in the opposite direction. Two studies found the classic SAB for activities representing attacking but a reduction (Study 1) and reversal (Study 2) for activities involving defense. Although the spatial representation of defense on the right was much weaker and less unequivocal than that of attack on the left, the results suggest that the spatial representations of defense and attack are located in different positions. Apparently not all actors and all activities are spatially represented on the left with a left-to-right trajectory but position and direction depend on the perceived agency. Directions for future research and applications of our findings are discussed.

Remembering the bad ones: Does the source memory advantage for cheaters influence our later actions positively?

Previous research has demonstrated that people remember information that is (emotionally) incongruent to their expectations, but it has left open the question if this memory enhancement has also an influence on our later actions. We investigated this question in one pilot study and two experiments. In all studies, participants first interacted with trustworthy and untrustworthy looking partners in an investment game. Facial trustworthiness was manipulated to stimulate social expectations about the behaviour of the partners. In a later second investment game, participants played against old opponents from the first game and new opponents. Overall, willingness to cooperate in the second game was influenced by the formerly behaviour of the opponent. However, facial trustworthiness affected economic decisions, too. Furthermore, we analysed source memory data that indicated no differences in memory between cheaters and cooperators. Instead, source guessing was related to cooperation: The more participants guessed that an untrustworthy looking face belonged to a cheater, the less they cooperated with untrustworthy looking opponents. Interestingly, in Experiment 2, we found a positive correlation between old-new recognition and later cooperation. In sum, the results demonstrate that memory and guessing processes can influence later decisions. However, economic decisions are also heavily affected by other social expectations like facial trustworthiness.