Typicality and familiarity of faces
Tóm tắt
We examined context-free familiarity information as a source of the effects of face typicality upon face recognition. Experiment 1 tested memory for typical and unusual faces by (1) subjects who received an input list followed immediately by a recognition test (standard condition), (2) subjects who viewed all test faces (targets and lures) prior to the input list (prefamiliarization condition), and (3) subjects who viewed all test faces after the input list but prior to recognition (postfamiliarization condition). Although false-alarm errors in the standard condition were lower for unusual than for typical faces, this effect was reduced by postfamiliarization and was eliminated entirely by prefamiliarization. The prefamiliarization and typicality effects were replicated in Experiment 2, which showed that patterns of old judgments were compatible with the hypothesis that, although familiarity of new faces is greater if these faces are typical, the increment in familiarity that results from presentation is greater if these faces are unusual.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., &Sturgill, W. (1977). Meraory for faces and the circumstances of encounter.Journal of Applied Psychology,62, 311–318.
Chance, J., &Goldstein, A. G. (1976). Recognition of faces and verbal labels.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 384–386.
Cohen, M. E., &Carr, W. J. (1975). Facial recognition and the yon Restorff effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,6, 383–384.
Davies, G. M., Shephers, J. W., &Ellis, H. D. (1979). Similarity effects in face’ recognition.American Journal of Psychology,92, 507–523.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Depth, elaboration and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Going, M., &Read, J. D. (1974). Effects of uniqueness, sex of subject, and sex of photograph on facial recognition.Perceptual and Motor Skills,39, 109–110.
Jacoby, L. L., &Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Kinsbourne, M., &George, J. (1974). The mechanism of the word frequency effect on recognition memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,13, 63–69.
Klatzky, R. L., Martin, G. L., &Kane, R. A. (1982). Semantic interpretation effects on memory for faces.Memory & Cognition,10, 195–206.
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.
Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition. London: Wiley.
Loftus, E. F. (1979).Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Mandler, G., Goodman, G. O., &Wilkes-Gibbs, D. L. (1982). The word frequency paradox in recognition.Memory & Cognition,10, 33–42.
Swets, T. A. (1973). The relative operating characteristic in psychology.Science,182, 990–1000.
Tulving, E. (1982). Synergistic ecphory in recall and recognition.Canadian Journal of Psychology,36, 130–147.
Winograv, E. (1981). Elaboration and distinctiveness in memory for faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,7, 181–190.
Yarmey, A. D. (1979).The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: Free Press.