The influence of processing instructions at encoding and retrieval on face recognition accuracy

Abstract Whereas previous research has demonstrated that trait ratings of faces at encoding leads to enhanced recognition accuracy as compared to feature ratings, this set of experiments examines whether ratings given after encoding and just prior to recognition influence face recognition accuracy. In Experiment 1 subjects who made feature ratings just prior to recognition were significantly less accurate than subjects who made no ratings or trait ratings. In Experiment 2 ratings were manipulated at both encoding and retrieval. The retrieval effect was smaller and nonsignificant, but a combined probability analysis showed that it was significant when results from both experiments are considered jointly. As in previous research, subjects who rated facial features at encoding performed less accurately than subjects who rated traits. In a third experiment exposure duration at retrieval, a potentially confounding factor in Experiments 1 and 2, had a nonsignificant effect on recognition accuracy, suggesting th...

[1]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  What is the best way to encode faces , 1988 .

[2]  Elizabeth K. Warrington,et al.  The effect of orienting tasks on recognition memory , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[3]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Deep--deeper--deepest? Encoding strategies and the recognition of human faces. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  G. Wells.  Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. , 1978 .

[5]  G. Wells,et al.  What do we know about eyewitness identification? , 1993, The American psychologist.

[6]  E Winograd,et al.  Elaboration and distinctiveness in memory for faces. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[7]  A. Baddeley,et al.  When face recognition fails. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[8]  R. Fisher,et al.  Field test of the Cognitive Interview: enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. , 1989, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[10]  G. Wells,et al.  Self-Versus Other-Referent Processing at Encoding and Retrieval , 1984 .

[11]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[12]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups , 1991 .

[13]  Eugene Winograd,et al.  Recognition memory for faces following nine different judgments , 1976 .

[14]  Eugene Winograd,et al.  Adult Age Differences in Remembering Faces. , 1978 .

[15]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  On Training People to Recognize Faces , 1979 .

[16]  S. Penrod,et al.  Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. , 1988 .

[17]  L. Nilsson.  Perspectives on memory research , 1979 .

[18]  G. Wells,et al.  Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[19]  John H. Mueller,et al.  Levels of processing in facial recognition memory , 1977 .

[20]  G. Bower,et al.  Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory , 1974 .

[21]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[22]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Sequential lineup presentation : technique matters , 1991 .