Among a host of challenges to successful ID screening, the Low Prevalence Effect (LPE e.g., Wolfe et al., 2007) also increases error rates. Errors further increase with additional real-world challenges such as time pressure (e.g., Bindemann et al., 2016) and vigilance (e.g., Alenezi et al., 2015). Therefore, the bulk of imposter detection duties has been and is being performed by humans.Įven under optimal viewing conditions, ID matching performance has a surprisingly high number of errors (e.g., Burton, 2013). Although technological advancements such as automatic face recognition systems (e.g., Taigman et al., 2014) and various methods of biometric scanning may seem like attractive alternatives to replace human screeners, such technologies face many of the same challenges as human recognizers (O’Toole et al., 2012 e.g., Tran et al., 2017), while also raising concerns about ethics, transparency, and accountability (Drozdowski et al., 2020). Professional screeners need to maintain safety by identifying such imposters, while still allowing lawful passengers through. However, a potential traveler may produce stolen, borrowed, or inauthentic documents.
In response to various worldwide security concerns at borders and other ports of entry, professional screeners commonly restrict access of goods and services to authorized individuals who present an authentic ID card. We discuss task performance and survey responses with aims to acknowledge and address this potential problem in real-world screening scenarios. Neither length/type of professional experience nor length/type of training experience affected ID verification performance. Across all three experiments, all participants were susceptible to the LPE regardless of professional status. Finally, Experiment 3 added a newly created Professional Identity Training Questionnaire to determine whether and how aspects of professionals’ employment predict ID-matching accuracy. Experiment 2 compared bar-security professionals, access-security professionals, and non-professionals.
Experiment 1 compared security professional and non-professionals. To address whether this phenomenon also occurs with professional screeners, we conducted three experiments. Nevertheless, previous research demonstrates that novice participants fail to spot fake IDs when they are rare (i.e., the low prevalence effect LPE). Moreover, security screening is a vital tool for law enforcement in the search for missing or wanted persons.
Professional screeners frequently verify photograph IDs in such industries as professional security, bar tending, and sales of age-restricted materials.
0 kommentar(er)
