IndexIntroductionMethodParticipantsApparatus and MaterialsProcedureResultsDiscussionIntroductionThe facial memory process is crucial in real-life circumstances as it is involved in the judiciary and laws. Despite the sophisticated mechanism of memory, inaccuracies can still be the result of factors such as familiarity, attention, emotion, encoding and retrieval phases. In the eyewitness identification task of criminals, facial memory is applied and taken as evidence of charges. Therefore, the process and biases of facial memory should be studied to reduce the risks of unfair accusations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Brown, Deffenbacher, and Sturgill (1977) invited psychology students in their study to present them with 12 pairs of mugshot-encountered criminals who turned in evidence materials and innocents in the mugshot phase. It was followed by the training phase in which participants were shown 4 criminals who appeared lively and asked to identify whether they had turned in the materials and, if so, described the materials, appeared in mugshots, and indicated trust in their judgments. The researchers found that the “mug shot only” group had a significantly higher level of false cues than the “training only” group, suggesting that memory confusions with previous encounters existed in the mug shot phase. Additionally, there were significant proportions of charges except for offenders without mugshots, mugshots only conditions, and training only conditions, implying greater accuracy with previously seen mugshots. A correlation between correct and incorrect confidence; and description answers of test materials at random level were found. Hinz and Pezdek (2001) studied the effect of intermediate lineups on identification accuracy with a repeated distractor face (RDF). In the presentation phase, participants were shown the target face. In the intermediate training phase, they were presented with a non-target training containing the RDF. In the testing phase, participants were provided with 3 different combinations of foil, target and RDF surfaces. They were then asked to identify the target face. The experimenters found a significantly higher hit rate of the target face when the RDF was absent, a higher false alarm rate of the RDF as the target face when the target face was absent, and a lower hit rate of the target face in presence of both the RDF and the target face, suggesting that participants made confusing errors about the RDF and the target face when identifying the target face based on familiarity. The hypothesis of the present study is repeated exposure of the same foil faces would result in a higher misidentification rate in the face recognition task than re-exposure of different foil faces. It is based on the study by Brown, Deffenbacher, and Sturgill (1977) and Hinz and Pezdek (2001) that repeated presentation of foil faces decreased the accuracy of target face identification and lowered the performance of the face recognition task. Method Participants Participants consisted of 87 undergraduate undergraduate students recruited from HKU's PSYC2007 course in the current experiment, and participation was mandatory for the coursework component of the course. Gender (males = 19 and females = 68) had a higher distribution among females while they weresummarized the descriptive statistics of the sample aged 18 to 28 years (mean = 20.31, median = 20, mode = 20 and SD = 1 497). Apparatus and materials The visual stimuli used were photographs of 10 faces of men " Most Wanted" in black and white, 10 faces of men "Foil" in black and white and another new set of 10 faces of men "Foil" in black and white. In the study phase of the presentation of 10 “Most Wanted” faces, the photographs were shown simultaneously and there were no time limits. In each recognition phase of the 2-day trials, the photographs were presented separately which was different from the study phase. The equipment used was any electronic device accessible to participants at any location. To present the stimuli, the “Facial Recognition” test was adopted from the experiments section on the website of the Online Psychology Laboratory (OPL) of the American Psychology Association (APA). Participants will be asked to enter their class ID to save data, start, and participate in the experiment. The collection of responses was then collected from the profile ID and the experiment results ID to collect the data. Procedure The independent variables to be manipulated in the current study were a sort of “foil” male faces presented on day 2 of the experiment. The participants were separately assigned to experience different independent variables, which refers to the fact that part of them was exposed to the same repeated "Foil" faces while another part of them was exposed to the different new "Foil" faces on day 2 compared to day 1. Two groups with various experimental conditions were included in the study design. On day 2, the control group was presented with the new set of 10 “Foil” faces different from those on day 1 and the 10 “Most Wanted” faces. On the other hand, the false memory experimental group was shown the same set of 10 “Foil” faces on day 1 and 10 “Most Wanted” faces. There were 39 participants in the control group and 48 participants in the experimental false memory group. Both groups had both genders of males and females, as well as different ages. The assignment of participants to the control group or the experimental false memory group was not random. There were factors common to participants in each group. In the educational block of the experiment, 10 “Most Wanted” faces were shown without time limits and simultaneously to both groups. On the first day of testing, two groups were given the same 10 "Most Wanted" and 10 "Foil" faces. Furthermore, the instructions and the computerized task, including the colors and sizes of the photographs, as well as the yes/no response, also remained identical. Although participants commonly experienced some of the design, differences emerged. In the test on the second day, participants in the two groups were provided with various independent variables accordingly. The control group viewed the different set of “Foil” faces while the experimental false memory group viewed the same set of “Foil” faces among those presented on the first day of testing along with 10 “Most Wanted” faces. The dependent variable measured in the study was the difference in d-prime results comparing day 1 and day 2 testing. The positive and negative results regarding correct and false identification of "Most Wanted" faces, respectively, as well as false alarms and correct rejection of "Foil" faces were measured independently on both day 1 and day 2 of the experiment. The difference in these results refers to the difference in d-prime results. D' is the d-prime that calculates the distance between stimulus-referred signals and no-stimulus-referred noise in terms of units of.