In this study, the relationship between face recognition and different facial encoding strategies was investigated. Children (6–8 years, N = 134) participated in both a face recognition task and an encoding task. During the recognition task, they saw 7 target faces in an eyewitness context (video) or in a neutral context (static black and white slides) which they later had to recognize from a set of 21 faces. On the encoding task, the same children had to categorize new faces (schematic and photorealistic) into two categories. The construction of the categories allowed participants to encode the faces either analytically (by focusing on a single attribute) or holistically (in terms of overall similarity). The results showed that face recognition was better in the social than in the neutral context. In the neutral context, only holistic encoding was connected to better face recognition. In the social context, children seemed to use not only information about the faces but also information about the persons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker-WardL.GordonB. N.OrnsteinP. A.LarusD. M.ClubbP. A. (1993) Young children's long-term retention of a pediatric examination. Child Development, 64, 1519–1533.
2.
BruceV.HumphreysG. W. (1994) Recognizing objects and faces. Visual Cognition, 1, 141–180.
3.
BruceV.YoungA. (1986) Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.
4.
BushnellI. W. (1982) Discrimination of faces by young infants. Journal of Experimental Child-Psychology, 33, 298–308.
5.
BushnellI. W.SaiF.MullinJ. T. (1989) Neonatal recognition of the mother's face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 3–15.
6.
CareyS. (1981) The development of face perception. In DaviesG.EllisH.ShepardJ. (Eds.), Perceiving and remembering faces. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 9–38.
7.
CareyS. (1996) Perceptual classification and expertise. In GelmanR.Kit-Fong AuT. (Eds.), Perceptual and cognitive development. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 49–69.
8.
CareyS.DiamondR. (1994) Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children?Visual Cognition, 1, 253–274.
9.
DaviesG. M. (1993) Children's memory for other people: An integrative review. In NelsonK. (Ed.), Memory and affect in development. Vol. 26. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 123–157.
10.
DiamondR.CareyS. (1986) Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107–117.
11.
FarahM. J.TanakaJ. W.DrainH. M. (1995) What causes the face inversion effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628–634.
12.
FarahM. J.WilsonK. O.DrainM.TanakaJ. N. (1998) What is “special” about face perception. Psychological Review, 105, 482–498.
13.
GoodmanG. S.ReedR. S. (1986) Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 317–332.
14.
GrossJ.HayneH. (1996) Eyewitness identification by 5- to 6-year-old children. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 359–373.
15.
Kemler NelsonD. G. (1989) The nature and occurrence of holistic processing. In SheppB. E.BallesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 357–386.
16.
MarinB. V.HolmesD. L.GuthM.KovacP. (1979) The potential of children as eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 295–306.
17.
PascalisO.De SchoenenS.MortonJ.DeruelleC.Fabre-GrenetM. (1995) Mother's face recognition in neonates: A replication and an extension. Infant Behavior and Development, 18, 79–85.
18.
PedeltyL.LevinS.ShevellS. K. (1985) Developmental changes in face processing: Results from multidimensional scaling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 421–436.
19.
PozzuloJ. D.LindsayR. C. L. (1998) Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549–570.
20.
RoebersC. M.LocklK. (1999) Der Einfluß von Metakognitionen und vorheriger Irreführung auf the Identifikationsleistungen kindlicher Augenzeugen. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 31, 116–126.
21.
SchwarzerG. (1997) Kategorisierung von Gesichtern bei Kindern und Erwachsenen: Die Rolle konzeptuellen Wissens. Sprache & Kognition, 16, 14–30.
22.
SchwarzerG. (2000) Development of face processing: The effect of face inversion. Child Development, 71, 391–401.
23.
SchwarzerG.KorellM. (1999) Development of face processing: Differences between schematic and photorealistic faces. Abstractband of the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
24.
TanakaJ. W.FarahM. J. (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225–245.
25.
TanakaJ. W.KayJ. B.GrinnellE.StansfieldB.SzechterL. (1998) Face recognition in voung children: When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Visual Cognition, 5, 479–496.
26.
VetterT.TrojeN. F. (1997) Separation of texture and shape in images of faces for image encoding and synthesis. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 14, 2152–2161.
27.
WardT. B. (1989) Analytic and holistic modes of processing in category learning. In SheppB. E.BallesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 387–419.
28.
WardT. B.ScottJ. G. (1987) Analytic and holistic modes of learning family-resemblance concepts. Memory & Cognition, 15, 42–54.
29.
WeberA. (1993) Autobiographische Erinnerung und Persönlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
30.
WellsG. L.HryeiwB. (1984) Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations. Memory & Cognition, 12, 338–344.
31.
WinogradE. (1976) Recognition memory for faces following nine different judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 419–421.
32.
YoungA. W.HellawellD.HayD. C. (1987) Configural information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747–759.
