The transfer-inappropriate processing shift is one explanation for the verbal overshadowing effect: a phenomenon that prevents accurate face recognition following a verbal description of that same face. Rather than examining a shift from configural to featural processing, this experiment investigated whether a shift from automatic to controlled processing could have similar deleterious effects on facial recognition. Automatic, and controlled, processing were induced using a computer-based Stroop task. Participants (n = 288) processed the font colour, or word reading conditions of the Stroop task; afterwards, their facial recognition was tested. Even though the Stroop effect did occur, the differences in facial recognition between participants who responded to the automatic condition and participants who responded to the controlled condition of the Stroop task did not differ significantly. The results suggest that the processing shift from configural to featural processing, which is induced by the Navon letters, would better explain the verbal overshadowing effect than the processing modes underlying the Stroop task.
BartlettJ. C.SearcyJ. (1993). Inversion and configuration of faces. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 281–316
2.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H.MacMahonC.StarkesJ. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experience performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 6–16
3.
BeilockS. L.BertenthalB. I.McCoyA. M.CarrT. H. (2004). Haste does not always waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373–379
4.
BrandA. (2004). A web experiment based enquiry into the verbal overshadowing effect. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
ClareJ.LewandowskyS. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 739–755
7.
CraikF. I. M.TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 268–294
8.
FallshoreM.SchoolerJ. W. (1995). Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 1608–1623
9.
FingerK.PezdekJ. (1999). The effect of the Cognitive Interview on face identification accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 340–348
10.
FlegalK. E.AndersonM. C. (2008). Overthinking skilled motor performance: Or why those who teach can't do. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 15, 927–932
11.
GaoZ.FlevarisA. V.RobertsonL. C.BentinS. (2011). Priming global and local processing on composite faces: Revisiting the processing-bias effect on face perception. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73, 1477–1486
12.
LewisM. B.MillsC.HillsP. J.WestonN. (2009). Navon letters affect face learning and face retrieval. Experimental Psychology, 56, 258–264
13.
LezakM. D.HowiesonD. B.LoringD. W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
14.
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Haifa century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203
15.
MacLeodC. M. (2005). The Stroop task in cognitive research. In WenzelA.RubinD. C. (Eds.), Cognitive methods and their application to clinical research (pp. 17–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
16.
MacRaeC. N.LewisH. L. (2002). Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science, 13, 194–196.
17.
MalpassR. S.TredouxC. G.McQuiston-SurrettD. (2007). Line-up construction and line-up fairness. In LindsayR.RossD.ReadJ. D.TogliaM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2. Memory for people.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
18.
MichelC.CaldaraR.RossionB. (2006). Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Visual Cognition, 14, 55–73
19.
MoorsA.De HouwerJ. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326
20.
MorrisC. D.BransfordJ. D.FranksJ. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 519–533
21.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 335–383
22.
PerfectT. J.WestonN. J.DennisI.SnellA. (2008). The effects of precedence on Navon-induced processing bias in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1479–1486
23.
RakoverS. S. (2002). Featural vs. configurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1–30
24.
SchoolerJ. (2002). Verbalisation produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 989–997
25.
SchoolerJ. W.Engstler-SchoolerT. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71
26.
SergentJ. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221–242
27.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190
28.
SporerS. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 36–97
29.
StraussE.ShermanE. M. S.SpreenO. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
30.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245
31.
YinR. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 81, 141–145
32.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759
