This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] On: 12 April 2015, At: 10:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pqje20

Famous face recognition, face matching, and extraversion a

Karen Lander & Siddhi Poyarekar

a

a

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Published online: 26 Mar 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Karen Lander & Siddhi Poyarekar (2015): Famous face recognition, face matching, and extraversion, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.988737 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.988737

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.988737

Famous face recognition, face matching, and extraversion Karen Lander and Siddhi Poyarekar

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

It has been previously established that extraverts who are skilled at interpersonal interaction perform significantly better than introverts on a face-specific recognition memory task. In our experiment we further investigate the relationship between extraversion and face recognition, focusing on famous face recognition and face matching. Results indicate that more extraverted individuals perform significantly better on an upright famous face recognition task and show significantly larger face inversion effects. However, our results did not find an effect of extraversion on face matching or inverted famous face recognition. Keywords: Famous face recognition; Face matching; Extraversion; Individual variation; Face inversion effect.

The ability to recognize faces is an important aspect of everyday life, and most of us can distinguish between and remember hundreds of different faces (Freire & Lee, 2001). Over the last few decades there have been great advances in our understanding of face processing but relatively little work has investigated individual variations in face recognition ability. Some global factors are known to influence face recognition, such as age (Hildebrandt, Wilhelm, Schmiedek, Herzmann, & Sommer, 2011; M. G. Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012), race (G. Rhodes, Locke, Ewing, & Evangelista, 2009), and sex (Rehnman & Herlitz, 2007; Sommer, Hildebrandt, Kunina-Habenicht, Schacht, & Wilhelm, 2013). In addition, some studies have investigated the relationship between face recognition and other cognitive and visual recognition measures. For example, Schretlen, Pearlson, Anthony, and Yates (2001) found that perceptual speed significantly predicted individual differences in matching unfamiliar faces. Later, Megreya and

Burton (2006) showed individual differences on unfamiliar face matching, with moderate correlations between matching and visual short-term memory, recognition memory, and other perceptual speed tasks. Finally, Wilhelm et al. (2010), using a structural equation modelling approach, found that individual differences in face cognition were not strongly dependent on individual differences in general cognitive ability (including reasoning, working memory, and mental speed) and object cognition. Thus, whilst face recognition performance may relate to a number of other cognitive tasks, the exact nature of this relationship is not fully established. Indeed, Wang, Li, Fang, Tian, and Liu (2012) suggest that individual differences in holistic face processing have a significant impact on face recognition, but this association is not due to more general aspects of cognitive processing, such as intelligence or attention. Whatever the exact relationship between face recognition and cognitive performance measures, it is important to look at other factors that influence

Correspondence should be addressed to Karen Lander, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 The Experimental Psychology Society

1

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

LANDER AND POYAREKAR

individual face recognition skill. Here, recent work has investigated the impact of empathy (Bate, Parris, Haslam, & Kay, 2010), social anxiety (Davis et al., 2011), and personality (Li et al., 2010; Megreya & Bindemann, 2013) on face recognition memory, all of which are related to social interaction. Empathy is a “concept consisting of our ability not only to share emotions but also to exert cognitive control and perspective taking in our [social] interactions with others” (Banissy, Kani, Walsh, & Rees, 2012, p. 2034). Bate et al. (2010) found that those high in empathy performed significantly better at a face recognition memory task than those with low empathy skills. Davis et al. (2011) found a small but significant relationship, whereby poorer face recognition was associated with higher social anxiety. Importantly for our study, Li et al. (2010) found that extraverts with enhanced social skills performed significantly better than introverts in a face recognition memory task (but see early work by Thompson & Mueller, 1984). Extraverts are known to be superior at decoding social information and to be more involved in social activities than introverts. Indeed, Fishman, Ng, and Bellugi (2011), using an event-related potential (ERP) methodology, found that social stimuli carry an enhanced motivational significance for extraverts and that this is related to individual differences in neural responses to social stimuli. Specifically, Li et al. (2010) asked participants to complete a personality inventory (NEO Personality Inventory, Revised) and to complete both a faces and a flowers recognition memory task. Extraversion was normally distributed in the sample, and they classified the top 5% of participants as extraverts and the bottom 5% as introverts. They found a significant positive correlation between face recognition ability (difference in recognition accuracy between faces and flowers) and extraversion, with gregariousness being particularly important. This relationship was independent of IQ, as measured by Raven’s matrices. Finally, Megreya and Bindemann (2013) correlated performance on a face line-up matching task (see Megreya & Burton, 2006) with Cattell and Cattell’s (1995) Sixteen Personality Factor

2

Questionnaire (Experiment 1) and the NEO BigFive Personality Inventory (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found a negative correlation between correct identifications and anxiety in female participants, but not in male observers. Here anxious female observers were less likely to correctly identify the face targets from the lineups. Experiment 2 replicated the correlation between correct face identifications and anxiety in female participants. These results suggest that associations between personality and face perception are limited and are confined to anxiety and facets of neuroticism. In the reported experiment, we further explore the relationship between individual face recognition ability, personality, and extraversion. We measure the big five personality traits using a short scale (Ten-Item Personality Inventory; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), and we also measure extraversion using an Extraversion Questionnaire. Rather than using a face recognition memory task (Li et al., 2010), we use a famous face recognition task (upright and inverted) and a face matching task (Glasgow Face Matching Task; Burton, White, & McNeill, 2010). Our famous face task taps into long-term nonlaboratory naturalistic memory and involves accessing established face representations. In addition, we determine whether personality and extraversion scores are related to face matching ability, which involves no memory component. Our matching task differs from that used by Megreya and Bindemann (2013; 10 face matching array task) in that we asked participants to simply decide whether two faces presented on the screen together belong to the same person or different people. It is interesting to see whether we replicate the relationship Megreya and Bindemann (2013) found between anxiety (a facet of neuroticism) and face matching. In the reported experiment we also investigate the relationship between personality, extraversion, and the size of the face inversion effect. The perception and recognition of upright faces is better than that of inverted faces (Valentine, 1988). The face inversion effect is a measure of the decrease in recognition performance from upright to inverted faces (Russell, Duchaine, & Nakayama,

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

FACE RECOGNITION AND EXTRAVERSION

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

2009). The face inversion effect has been explained by “configural processing”, whereby inversion disrupts configural/holistic processing and leaves feature information intact (Rakover, 2002). One suggestion is that people with very good face recognition abilities (super-recognizers; Russell et al., 2009) show a larger detrimental effect of inversion on familiar face recognition than people with face blindness. Consequently, we look at whether extraversion is significantly related to face recognition performance and the size of the face inversion effect, within a nonclinical population.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY Method Participants A total of 100 participants (52 female; 48 male, age 18–32 years; median age 23 years) were recruited for the study. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and had been residents of the UK for more than a year. Materials, design, and procedure The experiment consisted of four tests—Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003), Extraversion Questionnaire, famous face recognition test (upright and inverted), and the Glasgow Face Matching Test (Burton et al., 2010). All responses were written. In order to measure the big five personality traits, we used the TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003). The advantage of this measure is that it takes much less time to complete than lengthy personality inventories but still maintains adequate psychometric properties. Participants were given 10 statements (for example, “I see myself as—Extraverted, Enthusiastic”), and they were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement (scale of 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree). For each of the five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness; emotional stability; and openness to experiences) there were two statements (one positive and one reversed). A

mean score was calculated for each participant on each personality trait (out of 7). An Extraversion Questionnaire (20 items) was used, which was adapted from one freely accessible from the online Personality Test Center Psychometric Services(see http://www.personalitytest.net/questionnaires/ extraversion/index.html). The items consist of a statement or question followed by a choice of two responses. Some items are related to the amount of interaction involved as part of the job or their position in the organization. Other items concern the person’s view of oneself, likely behaviour in a social setting, and anxiety in a public-speaking setting. The famous face recognition task showed participants pictures of British and American actors and presenters. Participants were asked to name the person, provide unambiguous semantic information about them (“Prime Minister” for David Cameron), or state that they did not know them. Each participant viewed binary black-and-white (thresholded) full-face images. Thresholding was conducted to degrade the images and move recognition rates away from ceiling levels. Thresholding was achieved by converting all the images to greyscale. Using a histogram method (0–1 luminance range), all pixels with a luminance value greater than 0.5 were converted to white, and those less than 0.5 were changed to black. This resulted in a black-and-white image of one bit per pixel. The face varied from 2.6 to 3.9 cm in width and 3.0 to 4.5 cm in height (3.4–5.1° visual angle), within a 9 × 6-cm frame. The famous face test was split into two blocks, with 48 faces (16 upright and inverted famous; 8 upright and inverted unfamiliar) shown in each block. Thus, across blocks, each participant viewed 32 famous faces and 8 unfamiliar faces both upright and inverted. The order of blocks was counterbalanced across participants and was randomized within a block. Face images were presented for 2 seconds with 8 seconds given for the response (reaction time was not measured). Following the experiment, participants were presented with a list of famous people who had appeared in the experiment and were asked to indicate anyone unknown. The short version (40 items) of the Glasgow Face Matching Test was used (see Burton et al.,

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

3

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

LANDER AND POYAREKAR

2010). It comprises 20 match and 20 mismatch image pairs, where match pairs show two images of the same person taken under similar lighting conditions, on the same day, but using different digital cameras. For mismatch pairs, one of these images is paired with a similar-looking person from the database, so that each identity appears once in a match pair and once in a mismatch pair. On each trial, a face pair was presented centrally on the screen, and participants were required to indicate whether the two images were the same person or not, using a two-alternative forcedchoice (2AFC) procedure. The task was selfpaced. The faces were all shown in greyscale, with a neutral expression and in a frontal view (maximum of 350 pixels in width at a resolution of 72 dpi).

Results The scores on the TIPI were calculated for each participant (each statement given a score out of 7 depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it; two statements per trait; mean score out of 7) for each trait. The mean scores and standard deviations are shown in Table 1 (see Gosling et al., 2003, for published norms). The scores on the Extraversion Questionnaire were calculated in terms of whether the response made to each question was the more extraverted answer (score of 1) or not (score of 0). The scores across all 20 questions were totalled to give a measure of extraversion (max score of 20; a higher score denotes more extraverted).

The famous face test was scored as a percentage of the famous faces correctly recognized from known faces. For example, if a participant indicated that they were only familiar with 30 of the 32 famous faces, then their scores was calculated as a percentage score out of 30 (2 unknown famous faces). All famous faces used had been used in previous recognition experiments (Lander, Humphreys, & Bruce, 2004). The maximum number of unknown famous faces, as indicated by participants at the end of the experiment, was 5, and the mean across all participants was 0.78. That said, the overall recognition rates for the famous faces was low (see Table 1). This may reflect the fact that although the famous faces were very well known, the images used of them were degraded by thresholding. The recognition scores on the upright famous face recognition test were normally distributed [Shapiro– Wilks, W(100) = 0.98, p = .06; skewness = –0.24; kurtosis = –0.21]. We conducted a series of twotailed bivariate correlations looking at the relationship between personality (as measured by the five different traits included in the TIPI; no correlations between traits of the TIPI) and upright famous face recognition (see Table 2 for all correlations). Results found a significant correlation between extraversion and upright famous face recognition (r = .232, p = .02). There were nonsignificant correlations between any other trait from the TIPI and upright famous face recognition. There was also a significant correlation between the Extraversion Questionnaire score and upright famous face recognition (r = .29, p = .003; see Figure 1).

Table 1. Mean results from Experiment 1 showing scores for the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, the Extraversion Questionnaire, percentage correct recognition for the famous face recognition test, and percentage correct for the Glasgow Face Matching Test TIPIa Conditions Mean SD

E

A

C

ES

O

4.58 1.25

5.29 1.02

5.34 1.04

4.73 .97

5.28 1.00

11.03 3.49

GFMTc

Famous face rec

EQb

Upright

Inverted

Match

Mismatch

50.03 18.29

30.75 16.19

79.60 10.82

74.3 12.90

Note: TIPI = Ten-Item Personality Inventory; EQ = Extraversion Questionnaire; famous face rec = famous face recognition test; GFMT = Glasgow Face Matching Test; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; ES = emotional stability; O = openness. a Score out of 7. bScore out of 20. cMatching and mismatching trials.

4

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

FACE RECOGNITION AND EXTRAVERSION

Table 2. Correlation matrix showing bivariate correlations between each variable Experimental test TIPI

Famous Face rec

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

GFMT

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1. E 2. A 3. C 4. ES 5. O 6. EQ 7. Up 8. In 9. Match 10. Mismatch 11. FIE

— −.04 −.15 −.02 .04 .65** .23* .08 −.14 .06 .13

— −.02 −.03 −.10 −.01 .03 .05 .05 .03 −.04

— −.06 .08 −.09 −.11 −.14 .02 .03 .03

— −.01 −.05 .07 .09 −.17 −.01 .03

— −.11 .02 .09 −.03 .08 −.17

— .29* .04 −.12 .02 .32**

— .70** .03 .07 −.06

— .07 .19 −.57**

— .65** −.9

— −.11



Note: n = 100. TIPI = Ten-Item Personality Inventory; GFMT = Glasgow Face Matching Test; famous face rec = famous face recognition test; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; ES = emotional stability; O = openness; EPQ = Extraversion Questionnaire; Up = upright; In = inverted; FIE = face inversion effect. *p , .05. **p , .001.

Figure 1. Scatterplot showing (a) relationship between percentage correct for upright famous face recognition and Extraversion Questionnaire score. As participants are more extraverted their percentage correct recognition score increases. (b) Relationship between face inversion effect and Extraversion Questionnaire score. As participants are more extraverted the size of their face inversion effect increases.

The inverted famous face recognition scores were not normally distributed [Shapiro–Wilks, W (100) = 0.94, p , .001; skewness = 0.87; kurtosis = 1.08]. There was no significant correlation between inverted famous face recognition and any of the traits of the TIPI or the Extraversion Questionnaire. There was a significant positive correlation between upright famous face recognition

and inverted famous face recognition (r = .70, p , .001). From the upright and the inverted famous face recognition scores, we calculated the face inversion effect [(upright – inverted)/ upright]. There was a significant correlation between Extraversion Questionnaire score and the face inversion effect (r = .32, p , .001, see Figure 1). The correlation between the extraversion

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

5

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

LANDER AND POYAREKAR

trait on the TIPI and the face inversion effect did not reach significance (r = .13, p = .19). Finally, there was also a significant correlation between the face inversion effect and inverted famous face recognition (r = –.57, p , .001). The Glasgow Face Matching Test was scored as a percentage of the faces correctly matched (Burton et al., 2010). Performance was slightly better on matching items (79.6%) than on mismatching items (74.3%). Performance on the Glasgow Face Matching Test was not normally distributed for either the matching [Shapiro–Wilks, W(100) = 0.93, p , .001; skewness = –1.03; kurtosis = 1.97] or the mismatching trials [Shapiro–Wilks, W(100) = 0.88, p , .001; skewness = –1.45; kurtosis = 4.85]. There was no significant correlation between the Glasgow Face Matching Test performance (matching or mismatching trials) and any of the traits of the TIPI, the Extraversion Questionnaire or upright/inverted famous face recognition. There was a significant correlation between performance in the matching and mismatching trials on the Glasgow Face Matching Test (r = .65, p , .001).

Discussion First, we have demonstrated an effect of extraversion on the ability to recognize famous faces. This result expands on the previous work by Li et al. (2010), who used a recognition memory task. It seems that extraversion is also related to our retrieval of highly familiar faces from long-term memory. Li et al. (2010) specifically linked the effects of extraversion to “gregariousness”. Interestingly, the Extraversion Questionnaire that we used has been less rigorously validated in the literature (but it does correlate highly with the TIPI extraversion score, which has been appropriately validated) and includes items that concern social dominance and sociability. Thus, it may be that a broader measure of extraversion or sociability is enough to relate significantly to familiar face recognition ability. Additional work is needed to look at different measures of extraversion and their relationship to social interaction/sociability and face recognition performance.

6

Second, we found a relationship between extraversion and the face inversion effect (Extraversion Questionnaire). Specifically, there was a bigger performance drop from upright to inverted famous face recognition, for more extraverted participants. Our findings with the face inversion effect are consistent with suggestions by Russell et al. (2009) who proposed that the face inversion effect is a marker for face recognition performance. Russell et al. (2009) used the Cambridge Face Perception test (Duchaine, Germaine, & Nakayama, 2007) rather than a famous face recognition test. Future work could determine how the size of the face inversion effect changes according to task and whether this is related to face recognition ability per se or to configural/holistic processing (Wang et al., 2012) in particular. Third, we found no relationship between personality or extraversion on inverted famous face recognition or face matching (Burton et al., 2010). This differs from previous work (see Megreya & Bindemann, 2013), which found a significant correlation between anxiety and face matching performance. However it may be that our measure of personality (TIPI) is not detailed enough to provide a good measure of anxiety, which is a facet of neuroticism (synonymous with emotional stability in the TIPI scale). Furthermore, this correlation was only found for female participants (Megreya & Bindemann, 2013). Later analysis of our results, found a significant difference between males and females in terms of emotional stability, t(98) = 2.21, p = .03, but neither group correlated with matching ability. Additional work is needed to further explore the relationship between anxiety, neuroticism, emotional stability, and face matching performance. Fourth, previous work suggests that unfamiliar face matching and inverted faces are not treated in the same way as upright familiar faces (Megreya & Burton, 2006). However, we did find a significant positive correlation between performance on upright famous face recognition and that on inverted famous face recognition. This result suggests that the processing of upright and inverted famous faces may not be distinct and

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

FACE RECOGNITION AND EXTRAVERSION

separate (see Megreya & Burton, 2006) but instead may rely on some similar processing. Here it is important to speculate on the nature of the relationship between extraversion and performance on the famous face recognition test. We have not necessarily found a causal relationship between famous face recognition and extraversion. Indeed it may be that both extraversion and famous face recognition are related to another (as yet unknown) covariable. For example, extraverts may have simply tried harder to identify the famous faces. Here further work measuring both accuracy and reaction time might provide some clues in this regard. Another possibility is that extraverts are more interested in popular culture, and this leads them to better recognition of famous faces. However, this is unlikely to be the full explanation of our findings, as the number of unknown famous faces used as stimuli was very low for all participants: those more extraverted and those more introverted. Nevertheless, in future work it would be interesting to see whether there is a relationship between extraversion and the recognition of, for example, famous buildings, as well as famous faces. Finally, in terms of a possible causal relationship, an individual’s inability to learn and recognize faces may lead them to become more introverted, to avoid potentially embarrassing social situations. A further possibility is that causality is bidirectional, with extraversion leading to good face recognition skills and good face recognition skills leading to extraversion. Using intervention studies we can look at whether influencing an individual’s interpersonal interaction skills boosts their face recognition ability. Alternatively, training on face recognition may improve interpersonal interaction ability. Original manuscript received 5 March 2014 Accepted revision received 29 September 2014

REFERENCES Banissy, M. J., Kanai, R., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2012). Inter-individual differences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. Neuroimage, 62, 2034–2039.

Bate, S., Parris, B. A., Haslam, C., & Kay, J. M. (2010). Socio-emotional functioning and face recognition ability in the normal population. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 239–242. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The glasgow face matching test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286–291. Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1995). Personality structure and the new fifth edition of the 16PF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 926–937. Davis, J. M., McKone, E., Dennett, H., O’Connor, K. B., O’Kearney, R., & Palermo, R. (2011). Individual differences in the ability to recognise facial identity Are associated with social anxiety. PLoS ONE 6, e28800. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028800 Duchaine, B., Germine, L., & Nakayama, K. (2007). Family resemblance: Ten family members with prosopagnosia and within-class object agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 419–430. Fishman, I., Ng, R., & Bellugi, U. (2011). Do extraverts process social stimuli differently from introverts? Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 67–73. Freire, A., & Lee, K. (2001). Face recognition in 4- to 7year olds: Processing of configural, featural and paraphernalia information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 347–371. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. Hildebrandt, A., Wilhelm, W., Schmiedek, F., Herzmann, G., & Sommer, W. (2011). On the specificity of face cognition compared with general cognitive functioning across adult life. Psychology and Aging, 26, 701–715. Lander, K., Humphreys, G., & Bruce, V. (2004). Exploring the role of motion in prosopagnosia: Recognizing, learning and matching faces. Neurocase, 10, 462–470. Li, J., Tian, M., Fang, H., Xu, M., Li, H., & Liu, J. (2010). Extraversion predicts individual differences in face recognition. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 3, 295–298. Megreya, A. M., & Bindemann, M. (2013). Individual differences in personality and face identification. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 30–37. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Unfamiliar faces and not faces: Evidence from a matching task. Memory & Cognition, 34, 865–876. Personality Test Center Psychometric Services. (2014). Extraversion test. Retrieved from http://www. personalitytest.net/questionnaires/extraversion/index. html

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

7

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:12 12 April 2015

LANDER AND POYAREKAR

Rakover, S. S. (2002). Featural vs. configural information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 1–30. Rehnman, J., & Herlitz, A. (2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica, 124, 344–355. Rhodes, G., Locke, V., Ewing, L., & Evangelista, E. (2009). Race coding and the other-race effect in face recognition. Perception, 38, 232–241. Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 146–174. Russell, R., Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2009). Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 252–257. Schretlen, D. J., Pearlson, G. D., Anthony, J. C., & Yates, K. O. (2001). Determinants of the benton facial recognition test performance in normal adults. Neuropsychology, 15, 405–410.

8

Sommer, W., Hildebrandt, A., Kunina-Habenicht, O., Schacht, A., & Wilhelm, O. (2013). Sex differences in face cognition. Acta Psychologica, 142, 62–73. Thompson, W. B., & Mueller, J. H. (1984). Face memory and hemispheric preference: Emotionality and extroversion. Brain & Cognition, 3, 239–248. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471–491. Wang, R. S., Li, J. G., Fang, H. Z., Tian, M. Q., & Liu, J. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23, 169–177. Wilhelm, O., Herzmann, G., Kunina, O., Danthiir, V., Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2010). Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces— One element of social cognition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 99, 530–548.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015

Famous face recognition, face matching, and extraversion.

It has been previously established that extraverts who are skilled at interpersonal interaction perform significantly better than introverts on a face...
150KB Sizes 3 Downloads 14 Views