Semantic interpretation effects on memory for faces

Five experiments investigated the effects of semantically interpreting faces on their recognition. Experiment 1 demonstrated that faces could meaningfully be related to occupational categories. In Experiments 2–5, each of a set of faces was presented with either the label of a congruent occupational category or a noncongruent label. Presenting a face with a congruent occupational label was found to enhance recognition that the face had previously been seen (Experiments 2–4), but congruent labeling also impaired the detection of distractor faces that matched previously seen faces’ categories (Experiments 3 and 4). In a forced-choice recognition test, in which distractors were highly similar to originally seen faces, congruent occupational labeling failed to increase recognition of previously seen faces (Experiment 5). These results indicate that interpreting faces, with respect to stereotyped categories, ratherthan improving a physical codein memory, led to theformation of a semantic code, which increased recognition of old items at the expense of the detection of new items. Another general finding was that faces that were rated more stereotypical were more recognizable, regardless of the accompanying label.

[1]  R. Malpass,et al.  Verbal and visual training in face recognition , 1973 .

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

[3]  J. Bransford,et al.  Abstraction of visual patterns. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  V. S. Reed,et al.  Pictorial superiority effect. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[5]  T. Daniel,et al.  Nature of the effect of verbal labels on recognition memory for form. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  A. Paivio Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[7]  Larry Hochhaus,et al.  A table for the calculation of d' and BETA. , 1972 .

[8]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Semantic factors in cognition , 1978 .

[9]  Differential hemispheric processing of faces: Methodological considerations and reinterpretation. , 1981 .

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

[11]  D. Shoemaker,et al.  Facial Stereotypes of Deviants and Judgments of Guilt or Innocence , 1973 .

[12]  G. Goodman Picture memory: How the action schema affects retention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  A. Friedman Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  J. Bartlett,et al.  Retrieval characteristics of complex pictures: Effects of verbal encoding , 1980 .

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

[16]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Influence of Social-Category Activation on Processing of Visual Information , 1982 .

[17]  Jean M. Mandler,et al.  Long-Term Memory for Pictures. , 1977 .

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

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

[20]  D. Dooling,et al.  Effects of comprehension on retention of prose , 1971 .

[21]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Meaningful-interpretation effects on codes of nonsense pictures. , 1978 .