34 Memory in Contc ^ Context in Memory

Smith, S., and Guthrie, E.R. (1921). General Psychology, New York: Appleton,p. 270.

Smith, S.M. (1979). Remembering in and out of context. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 460-471.

Smith, S.M. (1982). Enhancement of recall using multiple environmental contextsduring learning. Memory and Cognition, 10, 405-412.

Smith, S.M. (1984). A comparison of two techniques for reducing context-dep-endent forgetting. Memory and Cognition, 12, 477-482.

Smith, S.M. (1985a). Environmental context and recognition memory reconsidered.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 173-176.

Smith, S.M. (1985b, April.). Memory and cognition in a flotation tank. Paperpresented to Southwestern Psychological Associaion, Austin, TX.

Smith, S.M. (1985c). Background music and context-dependent memory. Americanjournal of Psychology, 98, 591-603.

Smith, S.M. (1985d). Effects of number of study environments and learninginstructions on free recall clustering and accuracy. Bulletin of the PsychonomicSociety, 23, 440-442.

Smith, S.M. (1986). Environmental context-dependent recognition memory usinga short-term memory task for input. Memory and Cognition, 14, 347-354.

Smith, S.M., Glenberg, A., and Bjork, R.A. (1978). Environmental context andhuman memory. Memory and Cognition, 6, 342-353.

Smith, S.M., and Rothkopf, E.Z. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distributionof practice in the classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 1(3), 341-358.

Smith, S.M., and Heath, F.R. (1986, April). Conscious and unconscious effects of envi-ronmental context-dependent memory. Fort Worth, TX: Southwestern PsychologicalAssociation.

Smith, S.M., and Vela, E. (1986, May). Context-dependent eyewitness recognition.Chicago, IL: Midwestern Psychological Association.

Spear, N.E. (1978). The Processing of Memories: Forgetting and Retention, Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Steuck, K.W. (1979). The effects of pictures, imagery, and a change of contexton young children's oral prose learning. Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Individualized Schooling, Working paper no. 264.

Steuck, K.W., and Levy, V.M. (1985). The effects of change of environmentalcontext on recall of stories and word-lists. Unpublished paper.

Strand, B.Z. (1970). Change of context and retroactive inhibition, journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 202-206.

Thomson, D.M. (1972). Context effects in recognition memory. Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 497-511.

Vela, E. (1984, April). Memory as a function of environmental context. Paperpresented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern PsychologicalAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Watkins, O.C., and Watkins, M.J. (1975). Build-up of proactive inhibition asa cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning andMemory, 1, 442-452.

Weiss, W., and Margolius, G. (1954). The effect of context stimuli on learningand retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(5).

Memory n Context: Context in MemoryEdited by G.M. Davie ^ D.M. Thomson© 1988 John Wiley & iuris Ltd.

CHAPTER 3

Faces and Places: Laboratory Research onContext and Face Recognition

GRAHAM DAVIES

North East London Polytechnic

ABSTRACT

People often report being unable to recognise familiar individuals whenthey are observed in unfamiliar settings. Such an observation seems atvariance with many theories involving context effects which emphasise thelack of effect of contextual reinstatement on recognition as opposed to recall.The results of laboratory simulations of this phenomenon are reviewed andrelated to current conceptions of recall and recognition processes.

rt voWm^

It is sometimes said that psychologists inevitably study skills at whichtheyjwe spectacularly incompetent. An example of this adage concernsthis author's prowess at face recognition. Having been fortunate enough tosecure a research grant, he spent a busy afternoon interviewing candidatesbefore adjourning to an end-of-year student party. As the evening woreon he approached one young graduate and enquired politely what sheintended to do on leaving university. 'Well actually', she replied 'gs aresult of my successful interview with you this afternoon, I shall startwork as your research assistant next week.'

It js temf)ting to attribute such an incident to context-dependentmisidentification. The individual has been observed in one contextbut is then not recognised when the environment and circumstance ofobservation change. Most people will own to having had an experience^similar in kind to the one described. Indeed in a survey of memory slipsassociated with faces, confusions or failure to recognise due to changingcontexts emerged as the single most potent source of attributed error ineveryday face memory (Young, Hay and A.W. Ellis, 1985).

Persuasive though such examples may be, they do not in themselvesprovide conclusive evidence for the role of context in face recognition.

36 Memory in Context: QMIV ) in Memory

In the example above, for instance, JaUiue=toJdenti£y could have ^arisenbecause the face had not been noticed Slficiently at the time of initialobservation: an encoding rather than a retrieval problem. Likewise, itcould be argued that the absent-mindedjoteerver had not been expectingto see the intejryiewee;; lherej^as^bJM_in_ocpectatioii.rather than any realcontextual inhibition.'" - a - v v"

Finally, one... must,, set such everyday misadventures against theimpressive accumulation of results from published studies in con-text and memory which demonstrate significant effects on recall foraltered contexts, but with no corresponding impact upon recognitionperformance. <fe^U.

This chapter surveys first the theoretical and empirical basis for therecall-recognition disjunction in context effects. It then examines thestudies which have explored the impact of context on face recognition.Following this, alternative theoretical structures are considered whichmight accommodate the face data and the fit they provide to existingfindings. Finally, broader issues raised by this research are consideredand in particular its ecological relevance, both to forensic and everydaymemory settings. ? *- Jsvw^.,1

BACKGROUND TO THE CONTROVERSY -' ^ A n^

Most influential memory theories now accept that encoding and retrievalare not determined sbfefy,by the properties of the stimulus itself but alsoby its context. But how such contextual influences should be defined andwhat their impact is upon recall and recognition is a matter of continu-ing debate.

For network theorists like Anderson and Bower (1972, 1973, 1974)or Kintsch (1974), e^nts_«ure_jngrniesentedL by \nodes; in a semantic

jieJtwork.^Encounter with an event leads to the tagging or activation ofthe particular node corresponding to that event in semantic memory. Ifan event is encountered which is not already represented in the systemthen a newjiode is recruited. Tulving's 'encoding specificity' hypothesis(Tulving and Thomson, 1973), on trie other hand rejects a network con-ception of memory in favour of a system where every encounter with astimulus creates a unique encoding or episode. Thus, episodic memory is,distinct from semantic knowledge rather than being parasitic upon it, as inthe Anderson and Bower view. ^ ^,ff , , _ ,

Both theories include reference to context effects and see a role forthem in encoding and retrieval, though the particular role and thevariety of contextual information emphasised shows significant variation.Anderson and Bower (1972), in their original conception, emphasised the

jrole of extra-stimulus contextual cues present at the time of learning being

Faces and Places '..f 37

^3V^^s aids tq subsequent search. The list of such cues is characteristi-cally comprehensive, Jncluding general, mood or attitude of the learner,physical position, oojn^icuous externaLcues, physiological state, temporalgroupings or other words in the list (p. 101). It is important to emphasisethat these cues operate to facilitate the search and not the decision phaseof retrieval. "Thus, .effectsJotxontextual change or reinstatement might beexpected for recall,but_riot for recognition.

The demonstration by Tulving and Thomspn (1973) of the influenceof semantic context on recognition as well as recall called for revisions

. t o network theory. In ^heir revised theory, Anderson and Bower (1974)> proposeofmultiple representations for words which are homographs (JAM,PORT) and even for non-homographic words which have a variety of 'dis-tinct uses' (p. 40). However, the extra-stimulus contextual factors identifiedby Anderson and Bower (1972) were not expected to produce variations insemantic encoding and hence should not influence recognition. A numberof findings or non-findings appear to provide support for Anderson andBower's position. Smith, Glenberg and Bjork (1978) demonstrated a clearimpact of physical context at learning and test on Svord Ijsjhrecall but foundno corresponding impact on word recognition. XiKJewise, studies of therecall of word lists by divers on land or underwater show strong contextreinstatement.effects upon recall (Godden and Baddeley, 1980). A similarpicture ejnerged from a review of state-dependent learning by Eich (1980)which showed stable and consistent effects of manipulation of internal

^harmacological state at learning and test when recall was the measure'- employed, but few positive findings when the measure was recognition.

How do such results square with Tulving's encoding specificity view-point? Central to Tulving's thinking is the idea that .events are uniquelyencoded and context provides the determinant of such encodings. Contextwas originally envisaged^ in semantic terms, although it is clear in hislater writings (Tulving, 1983) that Tulving extends contextual influenceson encoding to environmental and physiological factors operating at thetime of the encounter (p. 150). It is not always clear to what extent he seesnon-semantic contextual factors influencing recognition as well as recall.Tulving's views on the identity and distinctiveness of recall and recognitionprocesses have shown some fluctuations ovur the years (Tulving, 1976;1982). As the author understands it, Tulving's current position allow? forsome variation in the impact of semantic and non-semantic factors, withthe latter being capable ofjnfluencing recall to the exclusion of recognition(Tulving, 1983, p. 45).

The consistency of both theory and data* in pointing to a negligible-influence of non-sernantic contexJgaLfactorH on recognition must nowbe arraigned against the more fragile evidence of anecdote and per-sonal experience. How is it possible to reconcile this conflict between

• -f '' • ' • .-- ,.' ,

38 Memory in Conte**^ Context in Memory

experimental research and autobiographical experience? To begin, there area number of important differences between the studies discussed to dateand memory for faces. The studies have almost exclusively been concerned"with words. Faces show some important similarities to words as stimulusmaterials but also produce effects, as with semantic priming, which arequite distinct (see Bruce, 1983). There is thus the possibility that ratherdifferent effects of context may be observed under laboratory conditionsfor recognition of faces than those operating in relation to words. ,

However, before considering the evidence, some attempt is necessaryto define what constitutes context in face recognition studies. As will bedemonstrated, researchers have used a variety of interpretations. Follow-ing McGeoch (1932) we may,distinguish 'internal' from 'external' contexts.Among the JBtgrrial cues utilised' has been mood, state at the time ofobservation and the verbal labels associated with particular faces. Amongexternal .cues have been the faces or persons with which the target hasbeen associated, the background against which the individual is initiallyobserved, postural and clothing cues. Such an operational definition ofcontext inevitably avoids the question of a more formal definition of con-text, a question which has been debated in one form or another since theInception of experimental psychology and is a central issue in a number ofchapters in this book. It will, however, provide a suitable orientation withwhich to survey the face memory literature.

FACES IN CONTEXT

Pairing faces

Early research on context effects was dominated by a methodologyinherited from studies of word recognition. Bower and Karlin (1974)presented subjects with jjairs jofjfaces, rather as other researchers hadshown pairs of words, and asked them later to recognise the faces eithersingly, in their original pairings or re-paired with another face. Attention tothe pairs was secured by asking subjects to make forced-choice judgementson the sex of the targets or theirlik^vjcjjjnpatibility. No significant impact^of maintained context was found, though compatibility judgements Ied"tobetter_ overall performance than classifying by sex. The author concludedthat Jaces^were not subject to the variability of encoding associated withhomographic words and attributed any failure to recognise faces or unfa-miliar surroundings as due to lowered expectancy.

Bower and Karlin's study provoked'a response from Tulving's groupwho criticised the original study for its low statistical power and weakmanipulation of context. Watkjns^ Ho and Tulving (1976) also_presented_pairs of faces to subjects but sought to ensure that they were encoded as

j

Faces and Places 39

CV

a pair by leading subjects to believe that they would be tested on theirability to identify original pairings. Under these circumstances, a giventarget face was recognised with_73£er cent accuracy at test if the pairingwas maintained compared toj>8j:>er cent when the pairing was disrupted,a small but statistically significant advantage.

A similar advantage of reinstatement of pairing was also reportedby Winograd and Rivers-Bulkeley (1977) wlo'1 sought to inducejunijaigencoding at presentation by having the male and female faces ratedfor marital compatibility. Under these circumstances samejpairs wererecognised 81 per cent of the time compared to 72~per cent when

target face appeared alone and 70 per cent when paired with anentirely novel face. Both_studies_concluded that faces were subject tomodification in encoding by the context in which they appeared, a findingwhich they saw as compatible with encoding specificity but not a network.tagging approach.

Faces and descriptions

The size of the effects created by pairing faces were small but significant..Watkjjns• et al. (1976) introduced a new procedure which appeared toproduce rather larger effects. This involved pairing faces with descriptivephrases ('keeps tropical fish'; 'drives an Italian"s]portscaf'¥tcT). Using thisprocedure and maintaining, or exchanging labels at test, produced an 84_to71 percent advantage for.pfeseryirig the original pairing of face and label,

similar positive effect was found when a forced-choice procedure wasinstituted.at recall. Pairs of 'old' and novel faces were better discriminatedwhen the phrase associated with the 'old' face accompanied the pair thanwhen no label was present. The latter result was replicated byJCejrjndWinograd (1982) who also demonstrated that the effect was independentof whether one or two phrases accompanied the picture. These findingson forced-choice tests help to answer criticisms of the earliest face pairingstudies that any facilitation might be due to response-bias elicited,jby* themere presence of a familiar element (the label or accompanying face) at test(Ellis, 1981; Baddeley and Woodhead, 1982).

Faces and emotions

A third line of enquiry concerns the role of emotional context andmemory. Bower and others have convincingly demonstrated that wheresuccessive jivordlists^are learned under contrasting emotional states, recallof a^iven list may be facilitated through reinstatement of the appropriatemood. Recognition tasks, however, fail to show similar effects (Bower,1981, 1983). Gilligan and Bower (1984) describe an unpublished study

40 Memory in Context: Conk.^in Memory

by GellermarjLand^ Bpwer_ which involved the same manipulation withsets of unfamiliar faces replacing lists of jwords. No mood-dependenteffects were observed when target faces haiTtoJ>e recognised underthe same or a contrasting emotional state as that at the time of initialobservation. w»-y.f^v»^s<w*^

The rather jwjeeping. cppiclusipn .th^at^ emotion Jhas no effects on facerecognition needs to be ^uatMed by trie interesting findings of Gageand Safer (1985). Their subjects observed ten pictures of faces drawnfrom the Ekman series (Ekman and Friesen, T^under either a happyor sad induced mood. Subsequently they aRempteoTto identify both theindividual concerned and the emotion shown in the pictures under thesame or contrasting mood state. However, on this occasion, the pictureswere presented via a jgchistoscoge so as to tap processing in either the leftor right hemisphere. No^inood-dependent effects were observed for facespresented to the left Hemisphere, but for the right hemisphere, a strongmood-dependent effect was observed with lowered recognition JorJacesoriginally^ seen in Ihe contrasting emotional state. The authors interprettheir findings in terms of the djffranHaiiej^iHw.^to mood detection. In contrast to the analytic processing performed by theleft hemisphere, the right hemisphere stores sensory and motor informa-tion concerning the observer's mood and this is encoded along with awholistic representation of the target face, causing the observed interac-tions. However, under normal viewing conditions, there is co-operationbetween the hemispheres and this mood-dependent sensitivity is hidden.It appears that Bower (1981) was correct in dismissing as a fiction thespectre raised feMtl)e film City Lights of Charlie Chaplin being recognisedand treated as aipjaTby one character when drunk but being unrecognisedand ignored when the same character was, sober— unless, of course, hehad suffered brain damage to the left hemisphere! .

Faces and backgroundsTf»«*V- t

A second group of studies has .sought to manipulate context for facesby taking as their starting point, the idea that face recognition may bemoderated by the physical environment in which a given face is observed.The most comprehensive of these is probably that of Thomson, Robertsonand Vogt (1982) who report a total of seven studies of person recognitionwhere context was systematically varied between study and test. Contextwas defined by Thomson et al. as a combination of setting, actiyity^andclothing. Subjects observed slides of actors engaged in different activitiesagainst a variety of backgrounds before being tested for recognition ofthe persons with different combinations of the three contextual elementsreinstated. Recognition' accuracy was impaired by changes. Jn, any, one

faces and PlacesM y •

41

element with the threecontortud_components contributing approximately' '

Thomson was aware of the problems of response bias and included inTusQures appropriate numbers of novel actorsjn similar poses, clothingor settings to the actuaLtargetsTTrFall but one of his experiments,the presence of old contextual components increased the rate of falsepositive responding, but in no instance was this sufficient to explainjthe facilitatory effect. A«|u3tiiig for response bias, eitherjjy using_asubtraction procedure or by employing signal detection measures (Davies,1986) still leaves a large and statistically significant impact for contextualreinstatement.

Thomson et al. are not alone in finding such effects, similar effects beingreported by other laboratories. In France, Brutsche, Cisse, Deleglise, Finet,Sonnet and Tiberghien (1981) manipulated the clothing worn by target

^persons in slides between study and test and found a large and significant% advantage for maintaining clothing cues. A similar contextual facilitationV^L was,jdaimed,by Klee, Leseaux, Malai and Tiberghien (1982) when_back-

grounds were used as contrasts and were either changed or reinstated attest. InTjritaTn, Memon and Bruce (1983) reported a similar improvementin recognition accuracy for target persons when the background againstwhich they had been originally posed (a church, a public house) was

v reinstated at test.fifr In all of these studies, combinations of 'old' targets \yith ,'old' contexts

J2ejded_h.ighes.trates^positive responding and 'new' Joils against 'new'contexts the lowest. While in all cases, higher false alarm rates occurred forcombinations of 'new' foils against 'old' contexts compared to 'new' foilsand 'new' contexts, the mere presence of a familiar cue was insufficientto explain the context effect. With the possible exception of Klee et al.,all studies show an improvement in accuracy associated with .contextualreinstatement, independent of response bias.

Must the context be precisely the same in order to obtain a facilitating.effect? Memon and Bruce (1983) compared the impact on recognition ofsubstituting for the original context, one which was highly associatedwith it—thus a person who had been shown against one church atpresentation would be seen against a different church at test. This com-bination produced results intermediate in strength between reintroductionof the original context and substitution of an entirely novel one. Klee et al.(1982) also included this manipulation in their study and found a functionalequivalence for the original and associated contexts. Whatever the reasonfor the'discrepancy.between these findings, they do suggest a parallelismbetween faces and words, in that highly associated contextual cues producesome facilitating effects on recognition for both classes of stimuli (see forinstance Light and Carter-Sobell, 1970, for a study on word recognition).

I

g.18

;. ~

S

. 3 8

~ ~

[

;. ;.

S' ~

D1 g"

~ \;.

~. ~

~ S

' ~"Q

AI ~

",g" ;

. ;-

~ ~

;. 0

8

§'

0 ~

21

. e:

~~

~ ~ (

:"1:

.-

§ ~ ~

~ ~ 8.

; ~ ~ s: ~

i;~:;

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ s: :\I

~ ~

. ~ [

§ ~

~ ~ ~

~3~

~ a

ro 8.

~fII

""

, 0"

"0

--

OQ

~

n

~

fII

'"1

000'"1

'..

. 0

AI

'"1 -3

".

OQ

~

~

~

0 ...

D

I '"1

n

- D

I ...

AI

!~

fII"O

,~

=

' ~

~

~

fII

'8

~

c ~

C

o; C

fII

0:

n

8 ~

D

I :s

~

. fII

;:3

0"

~

:3

~

=t - fII

S',,

<

~

'to 3

~ :~

.2 !~

E

-: ~ ~

o.oa

~

D. ~

~

2: ~

~ ~

~r!

l:'2.

~ ~

'< ~

e. g.

'; lP

;' ~

-- ~

~ ~

8 ~

~

0' ~

0.

]In

c:

\..

. 0

I'D

~

0"

~

~

~

DI

n '"1

\0

0.

'"1

0"

0 fII

a"

- <

~

P

o A

I ~

O

Q8

~ ~

.'--"

'i ...

fII

'"1

~~

~~

:3

!",,~

'<=

,~~

OQ

~~

~fII

o~

"O-~

S'2

I.<;~

fII~

~P

o~O

~

:~,~

,-2'

S'

;a A

I a\;.

"

AI i~

j'"1'

~

~

0. ~

. ~

. n

a 8"

0 ~

§

Po g

§. :r

"~"O

~

a

~

n '"1

Q

.~. '2

(a

:~e.

;. e:

:3:s

:!

AI'

ft,

,ttj

:3

'ob~

8:;~

, 0

.(!

:3

='

AI

8~

fII

0.

-

"<

DI

,,'"

'1;"

', D

I:1.

~

~

n ...

:! .(

! ' I~

:::o.

~

O

Q

ow

0"1~

""

><

0.

;:3-,

' -

~~

. fII

fII ~

'"1

'" (I

) ~ -

. -

- 0

S. ~

fII

"O

n D

I 0

='

ow

~

~:.,

' =

' (I

)

-:3

=::-

-0

""

n':A

I"o.

~:3

~

""""

~~

"O

n~

~

0 ~

~

n (I

) -'"

1 P

".O

P

o~

AI

o.~

,<-A

I O

.(!

Q~

0

"',;'

" ~

;;;

;, :;~

:r

" 0.

"'"

0 1.

~

DI

~

...

AI

...

...

... ~

...

A

I <

OQ

Po;

) 'w

:=

' -

<

~

:""=

.-<

'i~

~

Q ~

a",<'(6

"~

_DI

;"Q

£""

o:3

.~~

~&

.!8;'

~~

g-

~

~.;.

~

2. !P

..g: 8

0 =

' A

I-P

ofll

e:.:o

..-

, :3

0

n""

- -'

, 0:

3'"

ow,

.E -

~10

".

0"

...

~

~"O

P

".

~

...

~

0 ,"

" ,g

, c

2:

<

-' 0

z ~

~

~

AI

~

'"1

0 :3

2,

\ fII

~

Q

.. A

I :r

"' ~

(I

) fII

~

~

:-

~ ""

~

g

"<

~

%.

~

e. ~

='

--

Q..

~

fII

AI

fII::3

""

~.

""':3

<

~

.;.~

,n

~...

~

0 - (6"

A

I! A

I ~

-'

-OQ

0"

'"1

...

A

I O

' ~

. ...

po

"O,~

;;.

-;a

~. ~'

~

Z

:r"

~ 0

. ~

~

~

10

0""3

.(

! 0

~

(/I

~ ro

~

~ 0

~

~ ~

~

e:

.(

! :s

:s

:3

~

'o

~,;;

. ~

Q

..<

C" o

":x

C)

- ~

"':

3 ""

~

A

I =

: ~

:3

~

A

I 0

~

~...

A

I 'o

J".

~

~

Po

fII

AI

-- :

3 =

~...

-~

. -

:r"

DI

~.(

! ""

. A

I :3

n

DI

AI - -

- =

' (I

) ~

~

0

='

0'\

<

AI

!"

~

n P

".

0'

DI

~ ;

- - 0.

-~

~

n

...

'"11

~

'"1

0 <

~

:3

~...

fII

"<

D

I 0.

p"

. ~

;)

- Po ~

~

:3

~

~ D

I 0 - n

n -

~~

~

~

:3

>n-;

;r ~

0 ~

~.

0.~

0;9.

n

~;t.

J ~

'""

=

= ~

~

fII

~

S. A

I ~

0.

:I:

:s 0

:s

='

~

~ g

: ~ o

!:i;

~

-"'.(

! A

I P

o:3

='

00

(/I,'

oJfII

A

I ""

~

-

~

~

{I):

3 (I

) A

I 0

n 0

0 D

I ~

~

0.

0 ~

tT

1 0.

~

:r"

OQ

o.

~.

~

:3

~"O

-.

(!

'"1

~

- n

fII

~

Po

~

='

~

0 00

D

I -;

- D

I (/

I fII

P

o ~

;)

fII

~

'"1 ~

n

~. n

re

s:

- - =:

: ;':

3 Q

. 0.

~

:1

- ~

"O

n 8

~ ~

~

'fi

"< ~

~ ~

\)Q

:: ~

;a

S' g

3 g

. ~

~~

~O~

:r"

0 g.

: 0. : ~

~ ~

g. ~

S', ~

~ ~

g g

~

D1.

* .E!- ~

8 ~

~ ~

; 'Ig ~

(I) '"1

'to

~

g ~

g

30:

3 --

Z

-

AI

;)

~

:3

.(!

AI

o'

I ~

~

'to

(/I

S

n .-

""

DI

~,

~

~

""

~.:a

:s

...

-

Po

c~

-

~

~

~

~

;;-

~

0 ~

~

. :3

:3

~

~

'2

c;

g 0.

~

-

S'

~

~

fAi

"<

~

Po

~

- !s

~{-

tp

8

...

DI

'tr ~

e.

~

:s

~;.

~

tT1

8 ~

~

..(!

- ;.

0.

~

- ...

~

A

I ~

...0

OQ

0I~

~

C"

n tn

. A

I ~

'~

i~

'2

OQ

~

O

Q

AI

0 -.

~~

X

fII

~

<A

I -

~0'

"1

AI

~""

"~on

{l)~

n'"

.:SA

lDl_

AlO

Q

~~

"< - DI

~

~ - 8

~

.,:r"

~

;':

r"

(/):

3 '"1

~

'"1

8 - 8

(6

" S

' :o

.~

n ~

:1

. '~

:~

0:

0. ~

tn.

p".

S'

~ 5.

"<

n

~ ~

~;a

tT

1 ..'

P.

0 -g

.~j~

~

~

~ ~"

9 ;..

(!

~ a

"Q ,-

~

'to ;~

~=

O' g

5: 8

~ ;'-0

~ ~

0.

a. g

~

AI!

~

§~

n

.w

~

'" 0"

0

,"""

"'.

. ~

0

~

0 I~

0

OQ

...

-

... -

, ~

-

' n

~ 8

~.§

~ g.

~

~

~l\\

~,~

~.~

~.-

g.o

~~

;:~

'~ ~

:~

~ ~

~-~

~ ~

~.~

~~

:g.~

S

'~~

=5:

g 8'

2.

10 - ;)

~

~

- ~, - 3

. ...

3 0

:r

" 8

;. P

o ~

~

-

... ~

~

. A

I ~

~

0

~":

. 8 ~

~ ,:

r" ~

. (/I

,-;;

0. ~

"

a"<~

~ ~

(/)

~'g

. A

I ~

~ ~

~ ~"

O ~

~ ~

. S

o ~,~

~

~

'go ~

~ ';

" g-.

: ~g

[~'T

h a ~

8 ~

~ ~

Q

DI

AlP

o "f

II '"1

n"

.DI-

" 0.

'"1;)

""~

~'"

"'-'O

:fn'-"

:S

AI

-fII

21

. ~

n

a S

' -;

;r :3

~

Q g

" ~

~ ~

~ 0

:::

;;-

Q.. f

II ~

e:

~

. c;

g ~

:3

~

"O

~

a" I

< -

: - - ~ t

o" S'

P

o ...

~

DI

~

fII

DI

- ~

0 O

Q

~

': n

n ~

~

,,:

1.

~

Q. - 2

' ..,

e ~

:3

I'.

J ~

IO°C

--O

DI ~

~

,~

'~.

~

~

x -

=

H--

.:s ~

Po:3"O :r"

ow 'I;"'

0 :3

0. -OQ

~... ...

fII -

'" ".'

(/I 'oq

~ -

- '"1

~

'5 :I:

...

Q.. D

I O

Q

...

AI

~ 0;9.

O

Q

'to "<

S'

S'

~. ~

~ ~

~

~

~

~ ~

':rct,'

~

S' ~

~ c

: n

~. -

:< !

" ~

c;

g S

o :i.

;

15. - ~

~

n :3

~

~

:g ~

g ~

Po

O"~

:~

~

~

S'

fII

~ ~

0.

:r""

O

,;2::O

Dl OQ

~

E:~

0

0 0

S' ~

~ ~

~

('...

~

<

~

0 o.

~.

~

..."0

...

- "<

~

fII

:3 O

Q

='

~ '

<

0 0

!~"'~

-

n -

:1. a

:1

. =

~

'"

g ~

~ ~

~

:r"

0.

g-

.g g

5. g

21.

--

~

~ * ~

- ~

£ ;-

a"

~ ~

io..~

21

. ~

0

Q ~

Q,g

. ~ Q

~

;! A

I ~

:

0 "<

~

n

~ 0

s

;a :1

. fII

0

0 ~

),

.. 2.

Q.

~

~;;.

O

Q ~

"<

~

<. O

":C

"~

DI

a" - ~

:s

0

~ o

' ~

:3

c

fII'

~

- ~ ,-

fII ,

~

'"1

-. >

n fII

:r

" ~

:r"

~

fII

AI

Po

~

"< 0

"< -

:3

~

o.

~

~

'"1

:3

"<

P

o ~

I 0

~0

- f'"

-"-"

.

. 0.

oJ

"~~

.(

'.

.. :-

., ".

"~

F,

~O

" ~

re:~

' So g.

~ ~

~ I

;' C

o; e: 'u

~

'0

" 0"

p"

. 'E. ~

a ~

~ ,>

';- ~

~

8 2

1. ~

8 ~

S

' ~

;. ~

;-

~ S

' s:-

~

s.s.

o.=

,-:\=

-.~

"O~

"O =

i~

S::

a ~

~s.~

.~~

P

o:3

~

~I:.

~

~8

~\~

~;:r

":S

~

p.

=

~;;-

~

~~

~

~~

'5

:8 ~

~~

. ~ ='

~

s- ;~.

~ ~

~ ~

tn.~

. ~~

~0;

9. ~

E.~

!a\:

~~

~

~,~

~ a:

~ ~

~

;a a

~ :-

~:gr

~

-.;

, "<

:s

0

...

n '?

:":-

:3

'"1

...

fII

' ~

~

:s

0:

3 A

I D

I ~

=

' ~

~

- 1

n~{I

) ~

~...

n

p".

AI

0 ~

- ;)

~D

I ~

. \8

fII

' P

o =

' 2.

:r"

~:

~

0.

:3

AI

~

~

0. ~

~ - p"

. O

Q I

Di

,po

"<

...

0 itD

~P

".

'"1

"<

6.

~

n ""

~

o'

=:

~

~ ~

1 [~

~. ~

[;"

2.;"

'<

: ~ §.

"]

~ [

~S

' 5.

~ ~

s.:I8-<. o

. tn

. ~ ~.

~.£

g ,~

~ ~

~

~

:30~ o~

:: a~

. ~

n"

--

OQ

'"1

' .

=.

fII'

0"

'" v'

~-"

-

0 0'

D

I -

n5.

~ a:

~ :r

" ~

00,

,<-

~ 0

~

~ §

=0'

~

~

0 ~

~

, :3lln

-1~

"Q

.. ~

!p

o!'

-~i""1 QJ D

I :s

- 0

n ~

"<

!)

;

=:..

~~

. n

~o~

"0

-"

':3f1

1:3~

'-'

C/lO

fll!n

- ~

I~~

C/I~

~

=

nAlP

o~:3

0~

o.-5

: a~

og.1

D

I~~

1't~

~-~

~:3

~5.

-,~

~fO

~~

0;"(

fllA

liCi'

p.

~s.

S.'f

llo.~

(-,

<

. =' -

-. ~

. 'to

~ ~

~ =':

~ 5

. \,~-"

O

S:-

:S

~

c~ ~

~ 2

.!~ 9

. fII

3 P

"","

~~

&.1

P".

~~

. p"

. 0

OQ

i~

~ ~

'..

.

:.:

~ ~.

§.,~

~~

5-.

i~ 3.

12. o

.o!<

:' S' ~

f~~

. ~

E

i" ~

;a I

~/~

~16

. ~~

~.

2' §

\g~

~g.

81 :

f; g

~i ':

3 ~

S-

f -

OQ

'o

w,

';3".

0

~

='

~

~

OQ

0;

. ~

-

~

~

n =

,. :r

"""

AI

0 P

o nO

' 0"

'" ~

'"1

fII

...

n

fII

n<

:' g'

~~

~:0

:3

~.O

Q:e

.:r"~

~

~~

o.

g'~

~

~'~

-,'~

-~

~

~:3

"<

~

'"1'~

~~

.OQ

~

n

n ~

\~

0 ~

I' - -

8 10:;.

:3

-OQ

liD

i ~

=

' ~

;~

(I)

='

Po

~

fII

:3

DI

~

:r",

~-

n fII

.(

! --

-' fII

-

~ i

O

Q

';3".

D

I ~

;;.

<

n'"'

" 'I;

"':J'

~

,<

--e

!.. 0

~

S

o::'t

o :3

po

"O

{I)-

;:'

Po

0.

~

... n

n

~ i

~ ~

0

0.~

.::;3

~

:J

' ~

a" ~

<

:s

:r"

~.

~.

:r"

0~

~

=

' 0.

: -

-' ~

0

~~

'o.-

I 0

~

n ~

fII

'I;"

' ~.'<

i

0 ""

...

-

...

C"

~

~

~ -

~

Po

~

"< - ~

=

,0

;""0

-

n,~

~

0"

~

1-

...

...

:3

~

.-

, =

' - DI

:3

~

O

Q

n A

I:DI

~

e: 0.

~

~

~

(I)

,~-

~

n ~

:3

' ~

n

"<

'"1

fII

is!-

a ~

~

;-(~

5.

:3

~

- ~

~

fII

F'- a

~ ~

,cg

i ='

:3

=

<

~ ~

~

fA

l; ~

P

o 0

to"

'"1

C" ~

~ ~

~ - '"

1 n

... -

n ow

-

~

n :r

"""

~

---'

~

~

, ,Q

.OQ

0<

; ~

~

C

" ""

, -

=

'"1

~

C

~

C"

=;a

fII

~

~

~

=')(

~

1~.-

'd:r

"~.A

I 8

~

fII

~0"

5I:s

~

"O!a

ifj)

8 8

P".

~.A

I:~

~

- 3

n -

~.~

.J:J

~ ~

e. g-

e: ~

~ ;

\a ~

~

2 {I

)..e

!. ...

AI -<

~ ~

P

o S

' ;"~

; ~

0"

0 P

o"O

g

po ;

!\- ~

~

...

~ ~

~ a

[l-6.

~ 0

:::

~

~

n

-"2-

~

~

0"

0 8"

:!f~.

..,e

~

DI

:3 ~

~.

~

2'0'"1

~

=

- -

\""

~\O

(I)

~:3

~

~

. fII

-'"1

:-

.ow

".-:

s,

-n~

~'"1

-""'~

~'"

-n",

.."."

~

,w"'-

a"~

, ~

:3=

' ~

~

0 P

o fII

- ~

fII

~...

fII

...

'0

~~

' o~

D

I - ~

- to" g

o 0.

0.

AI

0 "<

~

t..

.,"=

' ~

...

fII;!

~

po

'"1

~~

~S

0.

-~E

.~

S-.

.a P

o...

8 ~

"..=

'=!2

.~

(6":

3 2-

E

Po~

DI

~1S

"\no

to

-;g,

~--

0 A

I :=

2

,~.

~

='

"'..,

...

- ~

..-

~

AI

~

~

~

~.'

.. =

' ...

,..

i i~

""

" ...

"<

§. ~

~

~ ~

O~~

~o",!

~

~ ~

a Q

~ ~

E.L

2'~

~ ~

~ ~

~o=~

: ~

~ & g

.8 ',f;x

~

~ ~

~ ~8D1

. ~

~-.

ow=

,"""

'"1

,-

o'-'"

O~

~fII

"~""

'-'"

...

- n~

"O"'o

":~

i.

":r"

nO

~

:3

n D

I ~

='

0 =

' JO

DI

AI

:r"

AI

~""

""<

"0

O

Q

--

~

~

0 '"1

~

~

A

I"

,-

-;0

:3 ~

O

Q

- --Q

. n

~:s

~

P

o fII

,fI

I o.

:sE

... 0

'"1

".

O:~

'"1

-

:s 0

:3

~

:3 '

"1 P

o A

I ~

,-

Q.

~"O

fII

~

fII

Po:

S

~

~

~

!~

S'

~

::;i ~

fII

~

g a

~.,,~

~

0

~

Po

~

':1

'"1

o.!~

po

-o-.,&

""'"1

.(

! 3

c.;"

S

o 8~

;)

n

\ ...

~

- ~

~

-

~

~

~

AI

~

- -'W

A

I ~

! ,

,~

~

~"

AI:3

0 Q

.. S

' ~

8

~.

~

8 ~

O

Q

fII

~

:r"

~ fII

DI -

Po;

=:

='

='

:=0.

0

0.

~ =

' =

' 1

==

P

". ~

~

fIIo~

A

I =

' =

' -

-D

I - -

AI "0 ~

~

.~.

0 D

I -

:J'

0- n

AI

10. -

- 0 - .

. ~

(/

I 0

~

n ~

'"1

AI

0 ~

~

~

~

;)

Q1

="

- - 'd

8

0";.

'" ~

~

. 0.

:3

~

,0

n I ~

=

' =

. ~

i<

=

' ~

~

-

0 ~

ri]

~ ~

~~

:-~

1 ~

.i g

~I!~

[~

~

~ ~

Q [~

:~

[~

~.

[\~ ~

~~

~Ig

i~~

' ~

~ [~

f; 3

So

==

P

o<':~

"'.~

'"1n'

~:3

<~

A

I~n'

:r""

"~~

~A

I,o~

I='~

i-I

8O

Q'I;

"'X"O

~"Q

- 8

=o.

~.:~

..a

o.~

P

"<"~

OQ

-<

(/I.

:30ft,

~

~

~

~=

o.~

'Ji

,~

~;o

~

re

~~

f:r"

no"O

~

~:

_ 0...

...

'" :3

...

.. -

"'..,

I;) D

I §

.. -

~.,

... o

w

;)

(/I.'

" n

!...

~

- ;)

ow

:. ri !

l. ~ i

~ ~

S..:

::;~

:~ 0'

[~

~. =

: ~

go ~ ~

',§;

o So;

~ :s

: ['~

:g ~

i: I;.

~

~ ~

8.~

1@

8 Q3

~

0 ~

a J!

~ ~

~ \""

~ :

g g.

~

~ ~

~ (~

~ ~

!5 E.

i~. ~

~ a

s:-

!~3-.

~

~ ?

~ ~

a

DI

='

0 0

~

.(!

'"1

0"

0 ;~

"O

(I)

... _

. ~

:r

" - i

~

'""

~

,0

- ...

"0 ~,

I ~

~

0

DI

:3"0

- DI

~

~_.

oo.

.!~~

.(!-

<,

~

~

~

~~

.~.~

C

"ifll

~i:3

~

~

:1."

'" E

.~'

~~

:s

~~

P

o~

. ~

=

' fII

- ;;-

::J: .

.. ~

;;;

";':r

" -

~

~

;)

~

~

'c:

...

--'(A

I ~

~

D

I A

I C

C

/I ~

:r

" 'to

- n

-U

1 ~

~ ~

g- Q

. ;: g

a ~ ~

i~ ~

~'S

' 0

?'~

:;s ~

;~:~

. a:~

,~ Q

..!:i;

\g 'to

5.!ii

0

' G

~ ~

S' ~

g-

~,.

,\

.,C~

~C

e.cc

C

C

c ",

"'cC

-:C

'cC

!.:;:,

':::"

;;'

Memory in Context: Co«< ) in Memory44

either_for_jnarital_CQmpatibility ('interactive') or individual JnendjiaessQndependent!). Neither instruction influenced performance when theother member of the context pair was reinstated or deleted at test, butperformance was significantly lowered for the 'interactive' group whencontexts were^hanjged,^ P£, ^

It can be le^Himateiy_argugcl that such materials only induce weakcontext effects and that a rather stronger influence of instructional setmight be found in studies where actors are placed against backdropj.

, The demonstrations by Parkin and his associates that subjects makingf trait or character judgements on such individuals subsequently recall

the backdrops better than those making parallel judgements on facialfeatures is certainly consistent with Baddeley's argument. However, therecognition data are less clearcut. Memon and Bruce (1983) manipulatedbackground context following trait or feature judgements on the actors.A strong context effect on recognition was found for trait judgements butnone for features, a resujt entirely consistent with Baddeley's argument.But this result must be ser besicte that of Beales and Parkin wbjdi,, whilefinding a stronger effect for trait judgements, still found a residual contexteffect following feature judgements.

Another approach to Baddeley's hypothesis would be to examine contexteffects for classes of stimuli which by his criterion, appeared likely to lead toindependent and interactive encoding. This approach was explored in an asyet unpublished study by Henderson and Davies. Subjects saw ^selectionof faces or national flags §uperjmgosecl on scenic backgrounds. It was^pre-dicted that theijaces should produce significant context effects but that nosuch effects should be present for the flags. Co^tearyjojprediction, bothclasses of stimuli produced significant context effects. Of course, it couldbe argued that the flags had been encoded interactively, but such post hocjudgements^do littlcfltb escape the circularity of the existing distinction.Peris (1985) attemptectto vary independent and interactive encoding withinthe same stimulus. Subjects were shown a series of slides depicting an^actor holding a tool or implement (hammer, chisel). In the backgroundwas_a portign^pf a poster. In the recognition test, they had to discriminatetargets fromioils.:which varied both in the tool being brandished (judged aninteractive element) and the fragment of poster shown in the background

M *(seen as an independent element). The^overall results appear to provide; support for thei!injdepjenj.gn^/^teracffv^jdistinction: changing the

implement used by the actor significantly reduced recognition accuracybut .^mending the poster had no significant impact. However, Peris alsorecorded whether the subject's eye moyjments.jduring the test phase

, fixated on the poster, on the tool, or both. Context effects were observed,- jrjspectLve of whether poster or tool was changed, provided jthe subject

fixated the item concerned at test. This result suggests that jnajntertange -

Faces and Places 45

of the context effect wa^depejndent on whether a given element had beenencoded at the initial jnsgej|ren. Provided such encoding had taken place,then the element influenced the subsequent decision on the identity of the -*target, irrespective of any preconceptions as to what was independent and

.what interactive.Finally, Baddeley's distinction needs to be viewed in the light of more

recent work by S.M. Smith (1986) described below, which demonstratesenvironmental context effects for such non-interactive stimuli as lists ofunrelated words. It would, of course, always be possible retrospectivelyto reclassify such tasks as interactive, a move which would be unlikely to

'add^glausibilUy to the distinction. Baddeley (1978) wrote of the levels of (/processing approach that it 'provides a useful rule of thumb' but in the //absence of independent measures of specifying levels, it was not likely to /be theoretically fruitful (p. 140). Much the same comment seems to apply /to the independent/interactive distinction.

The conditional search model -»

It is possible to develop rteJLwoik,theory, in such a way as to account forboth positive and negative,effects of context on recognition memory. Oner yvA4v*?i^<x-. •. '•j/vyj. o . „such approach ^mbodying. the idea of conditional search was originallysuggested by Juola, Fischer, Wood and Atkinson (1971) and developedindependently by Tiberghien (1976) and Mandler (1980). According tothis viewpoint, two distinct mechanisms may mediate recognition. Thefirstjsja_fasi, pCTcepfuaUy-baseHjsystem which is, automatic in characterand is activated where the stimulus is highly familiar, very recent or both.Thejjecond mechanism is slower, more cognitively-based and is Broughtinto action if the initial 'pass' is unsuccessful. .This latter system operates jby checking network connections and 'tags^'ln other words invoking^'contextual information to reach a formal decision. The cognitive system is «

j be invoked with stimuli which are less diistinctiyjg, less frequentlyIsSroujiiejed and/or when long delays separate encoding and retrieval,c Support for such a dual process approach has emerged in the verballearning field from the work of Atkinson and associates (Atkinson andJuola, 1974) but for the purposes of this review, the Jcey^study^ is pneby Mandler, Pearlstone and Koopmans (1969). Their subjects classifiedrandom sets of words into categories based on subjective similaritybefore being asked to either recall or recognise the words. Whentested immediately after presentation, effectiveness of categorisationinfluenced recall but not recognition. However, as delay increased, totwo and five weeks, so the significance of category cues increased forrecognition until it reached the same level as for recall. According tojthe conditional search model, initia^.recpgnitionjyasjjased,pn the faster

46 Memory in Contey ^Context in Memory Faces and Places 47

perceptual system, but with delay became increasingly dependent on theslower cognitive system.

Although the theory was originally proposed for verbal memory,Mandler (1980) has argued for its relevance to faces, a view explicitlydeveloped and extended by Tiberghien (1983, 1986). Among the bestevidence for conditional search operating with faces is a study by Perisand Tiberghien (1984). Subjects were shown a series of pictures of girls'faces, each accompanied by a different Christian name spoken in a distinc-tive voice. Later they were asked to recognise the faces accompanied byeither the same, or a different name, spoken by the original or a differentvoice. Both latency and error data were recorded and analysis focussed onthe latencies for correct responses to the different varieties of recognitionstimuli. Each subject's reaction times were partitioned at the midpointinto a 'fast' and 'slow' group. This produced a contrasting pattern ofcontextual influence: for^fast^ responses there was no effect of context,whereas for 'slow'^context had its usual impact. The authors interpretthis result in terms of the conditional search model with fastjrespondingbeing mediated by the familiarity component and the slowerjesponding'reflecting the contextually sensitive cognitive component. As fibefghleri(1986) notes, this finding was, however, oniylbund~lorTorrect responsesand not for errors, nor is it clear whether reaction times were bimodallydistributed as the theory seems to require.

Another potential technique for separating out the proposed com-ponents would be to replicate the original Mandler et al. (1969) study,this time using faces rather than words. According to the theory, as timepasses and familiarity wanes, recognition performance should becomeincreasingly influenced by contextual cues. At least three unpustudies have examined this issue with no clear support. The mostwas conducted by Thomson (1984) using groups of^subjects varying in agefrom 7 to 13 years and five delay intervals stretching from an immediate testto one week. Kesults werec^nsistent in showing no interaction over time.between accuracy and vulnerability to contextual influences. Memon (1985)too failed to find any interaction with undergraduate subjects tested afterdelays of 15 minutes and two days. Memon also included an instructionalcondition designed to increase the probability: of integrated encoding offace and background, but without any apparent effect on the pattern ofresults over time. Similar negative findings arose from an unpublishedstudy at Aberdeen by Brown (1986) who did find a significant interactionbut only fojr correct responses; increases in false alarms were no greater forsame than altered, context conditions. One possible /confounding factor inall of these studies is ther relative rate of decay, of stimulus and contextinformation. If the latter .detunes"at the same or crvgn a faster rate thanthe stimulus, then contextual influences may be obscured, a point noted

by Riccio, Richardson and Ebner (1984) in their discussion of contextualinfluences on animal discrimination learning. All three studies used uniquelinks between context and face. Perhaps a better analogy with the originalMandler et al. study would be to use a smaller number of contexts sharedwith a number of. stimulus persons.

Quite apart, from its empirical base, some of the sthegretical^ constructsof the conditional search model are in need tof Clarification. lust as in

HnfcM*«$addeley's theory, there is a need toj|ro|cnbje the conditions likely to/Uw»fr elicit judgements based on familiarity as opposed to cognitive search. There

is also some confusion regarding the contextual relationship between theclass of material on which the original theory was based (words) and theclass to which it has been extended (faces). The forrnerjdready^exists inthe menta]Jejacon_pfjhe_ subject priorJc^hejncpjerimeritjJhe puippse the subjecHn a verbal rej^ni^rrslu'd£ls to differentiate.relevant knownwords from the irrelevant. For subjects inTacei memory studies^however,all stimuli are novel at the inception of the experiment. Thus, recognitionmay take place later purely on the basis of whether thejace has been seenbefore or not; an absolute not a relative judgement.

p On this bjisis it can be argued that a subset of familiar faces mightprovide a better test of at least Mandler's version of conditional search.In fact, where contextual manipulations of the kind described havebeen employed using the faces of celebrities or colleagues known tothe subjects, little or no contextual influence on recognition has beenreported (Thomson et al., 1982; Davies and Milne, 1982). However,personal experience and the work of Young et al. (1985) suggests thatknown faces do evoke contextually-based errors of recognition. However,all experimental studies to date have used arbitrary Qjmju.nctions'bf personsand backdrops. Perhaps more careful matching—and mismatching—ofcontexts (Sebastian Coe on the race track as opposed to the Houses ofParliament) might produce more contextually sensitive results. For themoment, however, it must be concluded that, Peris and Tiberghien'sinteresting result apart, there is little positive basis for extending theconditional search hypothesis from the verbal to the non-verbal domain.

Depth and elaboration -

S.M. Smith (1986) has recently reported j series of experiments onrecall of word lists which show a^parentiy stable effects on recognitionmemory for environmental context. This surprising'discrepancy from theprevious negative findings in this area is attributed by Smith to thenature of the processing induced in his new studies relative to thatin the traditional intentional learning study.In Jus, most recent work,subjects learn and recall lists of five words, osfensfely as part of a test

48 Memory in Context: Conidt in Memory

of short-term memory. Later they are unexpectedly asked to recognise allthe wprxjsjnreviously presented. This new procedure, Smith argues, leadsto snajlowprocessing, compared to the deeper, more ejabpiajte. processingof the traditional memory test. Under such incidental learning, he states,the influence of contextual cues normally marginatised_by the availabilityof more elaborate processing strategies, comes once more to the fore, inrecognition as well as recall tests. - ^fg"

Apart from noting the incompatibility of his findings with an interactiveinterpretation, Smith does not apply his theory .beyond- the materials forwhich it was developed. No study in the face literature has so far contrastedan incidental and intentional learning task. However, it seems difficult to^cpncile the theory with the repeated finding that traditionally 'shallow'processing tasks like judging facial features; lead to much weaker contexteffects than the deeper processing exemplifie(i_ by trait or character ratings(e.g. Memon and Bruce). T,o the extent that everydayIsiipsIn face identi-fication are the result of incidental learning of context, the theory has apotential relevance to faces, but clearly there is as yet no direct evidencefor its applicability to non-verbal material.

FACES AND PLACES

From the review of the literature it appears that a wide variety of contexteffects have been reported with faces. In ascending order of strength theseappear to be altered mood states, a companion face, a descriptive phaseand postural clothing and environmental cues. It is unclear whether theseseparate contextual elements are independent of each other or summativein their impact, as the Encoding Specificity approach implies. There is someevidence for additivity of dress, .postural and background information(Thomson et a/., 1982; Davies and Milne, 1982) and perhaps affective andenvironmental cues (Davies and Milne, 1985), but much more needs to beuncovered before a true taxonomy of context can be established. Contexteffects are not jneyitable, they depend crucially upon how the subjectperceives the situation. Instructions which emphasise the relationshipbetween stimulus and context, figure and ground, increase the likelihoodof an effect being observed. Such effects are not restricted to encodingas the work of Thomson (1981) makes clear; the size of any contextualfacilitation can be manipulated by instructions which emphasise adoptinga strict or jax criterion towanJTthe possibility of error.

As has been argued, none of the existing theories provides an entirelysatisfactory or comprehensive account of the observed effects with faces.This probably results from their grounding in verbal learning studies withthe only occasionaljojay] into non-verbal materials. There is now a growingliterature on face recognition in general and this has_bjgyghi in its wake

Faces and Places 49

theories specifically concerned with recognition of individuals (Davies, Ellis^j and Shepherd, 1981; Ellis, Jeeves, Newcombe and Young, 1986).

' One criticism of face recognition theories to date has been their concernfor facial appearance identification without regard for the moderating influ-ence of context (Davies, 1986). Contextual factors tend to be lifergecTirito a

rheterpdox_group of variables in a box labelled 'other cognitive influences''(e.g. Hay and Young, 1982). However, if the current results are accepted, r <

ii appears that for novel faces at least, contextual influences can jxertas powerful and moderating influence or recognition as more directlyfacelike factors such as orientation and expression. There is a need tobuild contextual variables into the core of such .models rather than as abolt-on after-thought (Tiberghien, 1986). Nonetheless even existing modelsmay be adapted to deal with context in a new a^id innovative way.

Memon and Bruce (1985) offer one example of such an adaptation,this time of the Bruce and Young (1986) theory of face recognition. This

!€ envisages.that faces may give rise to a variety of encoded representations inmemory. These range fromjuperficial picture codes (representing the sur-face details of the particular view of the face), through invariant structuralcodes (concerned with feature information) through to deeper semanticcodes (in|eiences and attributions generated by the subject). Recognitionmemory involves achieving a match between encoded information andthe stimulus at test. Memon and Bruce argue that settings and clothingcould well influence the form of attribution made by subjects at encoding(a portrait of a man will be encoded with different semantic elaborationsfif shown against a school as opposed to a building site). Such a theorycopes well with much of the face context literature. It explains the ba,siccontext effect and how that effect is ejwanceci by specific instructions tomake inferences and attributions. It also explains the failure of familiarfaces to evoke context effects under laboratory conditions by arguing thatprior established semantic information will be jnVuKicient to override anyrival encodings suggested by the background shown in the slide. What ishow required is a series of studies aimed at directly testing specific impli-cations of the model. For instance, if the theory is correct, then subjectsshould remember less about the context of a familiar face compared toa novel one. Likewise, an environmental context which is semanticallyrich for the subject should produce different effects than one which, is

* impoverished. Tiberghien (personal communication) has demonstratedthat familiar contexts produce a weaker effect compared to ones whichare novel to the observer.

While the Memon and Bruce approach looks promising, it is alsotime to examine the ecological relevance of the paradigms employed todate. How representative are they of failures to recognise under conditionsof changed context? Or improved recognition under reinstated context?

50 Memory in Conte: Context in Memory

Psychologists must continuously be aware of 'the functional autonomy ofmethods' whereby a paradigm which starts as ajneansjo an end becomesan end in itself.~c"v-"'" '••••'•- '-V:' "4^"-r^o , v->'--''";;

Turning first to failur^vtof, recognise, Young et-al. in their studyof face memory studies reveal that, of the 922 incidents reported, 135or 15 per cent involved context-based confusions. Moreover, the greatmajority of these were resolved by the generation of context relevantcues: some 64 per cent by the observers themselves and a further 25 percent by information contributed by others. However, there is an important

- discrepancy in that in nearly all cases, the experience was accompanied by<a 'feeling of knowing', the problem was one of deciding precisely whowas the individual concerned. This emphasis on a problem of identificationcontrasts with laboratory studies which use novel faces and are concernedpurely with recognition. g;, ,4^ .., ; > « , ;

However, the existing studies should not be dismissed prematurely.First, Young et al. note that context-based errors occurred most frequentlyfor little-kno.w;n faces rather than for habitual acquaintances, which paral-lels and bolsters existing laboratory findings. Second, it can be argued thata total failure to recognise is different only in degree rather than kind from'a feeling of knowing'. We may well not be aware when we pass a distantacquaintance on a foreign beach and it requires a circumstance of the kindoutlined in the Introduction to bring the phenomenon to the notice of theobserver. However., ,there is clearly a need for experimental studies whichmimic more Convincingly the circumstances of real-life contextual errors.

Turning to attempts to improve recognition through reinstating context,the strong.and stable effects of this manoeuvre must be contrasted withthe more modest and equivocal findings reported in the Applied portionof this book. Why are context reinstatement effects in real-life settings sounreliable? Apart from noting that the effects of laboratory-isolated vari-ables are inevitably weaker in realistic settings (Davies, in press), there isa definite need for laboratory-based studies which make more concessionsto forensic realism. An example of a study which exemplifies this 'bridging'role is that of Maas and Brigham (1982) who found significant effects ofcontextual cues when the initial single target was observed live behind aone-way mirror before being identified in a photospread involving eitherdifferent or reinstated contextual cues. - /•

Studies should also examine forensic situations where context effectsdo not occur: the so-called 'unconscious transference' phenomenon wherea person seen in one setting is subsequently identified as being present atanother (Tiberghien, 1986). It is exemplified in the phenomena of an inno-'centjuspect who is seen in ajmugshop display and then selected mistaken-ly at an identification parade as the actual criminal (see Shepherd, Ellis andDavies, 1982, for examples). What circumstances lead to such 'context free'

Faces and Places 51

identification? Are they more likely to be made to familiar faces or novelones? Is it necessary for criminal attributions to be made to the 'innocent'person in order for them to be confused at the subsequent parade? In otherwords, under what circumstances will context operate to protect a memoryand when will it become a free-floating non-contextualised representation?These are issues which deserve to be explored and which any theory of theimpact of places on faces must adequately encompass.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processesin free recall. Psychological Review, 79, 97-123.

Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H. (1973). Human Associative Memory, WashingtonDC: A. Winston.

Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H. (1974). A prepositional theory of recognitionmemory. Memory and Cognition, 2, 406-412.

Atkinson, R.C. and Juola, J.F. (1973). Factors influencing speed and accuracy ofword recognition, in S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and Performance, IV New York:Academic Press, pp. 583-612.

Baddeley, A.D. (1978). The trouble with levels: a re-examination of Craik andLockhart's framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-151.

Baddeley, A.D. (1982). Domains of recollection. Psychological Review, 89, 708-729.Baddeley, A.D. and Woodhead, M. (1982). Depth of processing, context and

face recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 148-164.Beales, S.A. and Parkin, A.J. (1984). Context and facial memory: the influence

of different processing strategies. Human Learning, 3, 257-264.Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148.Bower, G.H. (1983). Affect and cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society, 302B, 387-402.Bower, G.H. and Karlin, M.B. (1974). Depth of processing pictures of faces

and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 751-757.Brown, P. (1986). Recognition of unfamiliar faces: effects of context and display.

Unpublished Honours Thesis, University of Aberdeen.Bruce, V. (1983). Recognising faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,

302B, 432-436. «Bruce, V. and Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal

t , of Psychology, 77, 305 -327.Brutsche, J., Cisse, A., Deleglise, D., Finet, A., Sonnet, P. and Tiberghien, G.

(1981). Effects de contexte dans la reconnaissance de visages non familiers.Confers de Psychologic Cognitive, 1, 85-90.

Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework formemory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Davies, G.M. (1986). Context effects in episodic memory: a review. Cahiers dePsychologic Cognitive, 6, 157-174.

Davies, G.M. (in press). On the applicability of applied face research. InA.W. Young and H.D. Ellis (Eds), A Handbook of Face Processing, Amsterdam:North Holland.

Davies, G.M., Ellis, H.D. and Shepherd, J.W. (1981). Perceiving and RememberingFaces, London: Academic Press.

52 Memory in Context: Coni ]in Memory

Davies, G.M. and Milne, A. (1982). Recognising faces in and out of context.Current Psychological Research, 2, 235-246.

Davies, G.M. and Milne, A. (1985). Eyewitness composite production as afunction of mental and physical reinstatement of context. Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 12, 209-220.

Eich, J.E. (1980). The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval. Memoryand Cognition, S, 157-173.

Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1975). Unmasking the Face, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Ellis, H.D. (1981). Theoretical aspects of face recognition. In G.M. Davies, H.D. Ellisand J.W. Shepherd (Eds), Perceiving and Remembering Faces, London: AcademicPress, pp. 171-200.

Ellis, H.D., Jeeves, M.A. Newcombe, F. and Young, A. (1986), Aspects of FaceProcessing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Gage, D.F. and Safer, M.A. (1985). Hemispheric differences in the moodstate-dependent effect for recognition of emotional faces, journal of ExperimentalPsychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 752-763.

Gilligan, S.G. and Bower, G.H. (1984). Cognitive consequences of emotionalarousal. In C.E. Izard, J. Kagan and R.B. Zajonc (Eds), Emotions, Cognitionand Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 547-588.

Godden, D.R. and Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Context dependency in two natural envi-ronments on land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.

Godden, D.R. and Baddeley, A.D. (1980). When does context influence recognitionmemory? British Journal of Psychology, 91, 99-104.

Hay, D.C. and Young, A. (1982). The human face. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Normalityand Pathology in Human Functions, London: Academic Press.

Juola, J.F., Fischer, I., Wood, C.T. and Atkinson, R.C. (1971). Recognitiontime for information stored in long-term memory. Perception and Psychophysics,10, 8-14.

Kerr, N.H. and Winograd, E. (1982). Effects of contextual elaboration on facerecognition. Memory and Cognition, 10, 603-609.

Klee, M., Leseaux, M., Malai, C. and Tiberghien, G. (1982). Nouveaux effectsde contexte dans la reconnaissance de visages familiers. Revue de PsychologieApplique'e,32,lQ9-ll9.

Kintsch, W. (1974). The Representation of Meaning in Memory, New York: Wiley.Krafka, C. and Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on

eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.Light, L. and Carter-Sobell, L, (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on

recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 1-11.Maas, A. and Brigham, J.C. (1982). Eyewitness identifications: the role of

attention and encoding specificity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 8, 54-59.

Mandler, G. (1980). Recognising: the judgement of previous occurrence. Psy-chological Review, 87, 252-271.

Mandler, G., Pearlstone, Z. and Koopmans, H.S. (1969). Effects of organisationand semantic similarity on recall and recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbal Behavior, 8, 410-423.

McGeoch, J.A. (1932). Forgetting and the law of disuse. Psychological Review.39, 352-370.

Memon, A. (1985). The role of environmental context in facial memory: someapplied studies. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham.

Faces and Places 53

Memon, A. and Bruce, V. (1983). The effects of encoding strategy and contextchange on face recognition. Human Learning, 2, 313-326.

Memon, A. and Bruce, V. (1985). Context effects in episodic studies of verbaland facial memory: a review. Current Psychological Research and Reviews (Win-ter), 349-369. '

Peris, J.L. (1985). Reconnaissance et metaconnaissancf. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,University of Grenoble II. i

Peris, J.L. and Tiberghien, G. (1984). Effet de contexte et recherche conditionelledans la reconnaissance de visages non familiers. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive,4, 323-334.

Riccio, D.C., Richardson, R. and Ebner, D.L. (1984). Memory Retrieval deficitsbased upon altered contextual cues: a paradox. Psychological Bulletin, 96,152-165.

Shepherd, J.W., Ellis, H.D. and Davies, G.M. (1982) Eyewitness Evidence: APsychological Evaluation, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

Smith, J.A. (1984). The effect of natural context priming on face recognition.Unpublished Honours Thesis, University of Durham.

Smith, S.M. (1979). Remembering in and out of context. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, Human Learning and Memory, 5, 460-471.

Smith, S.M. (1986). Environmental context-dependent recognition memory usinga short-term memory task for input. Memory and Cognition, 14, 347-354.

Smith, S.M., Glenberg, A.M. and Bjork, R.A. (1978). Environmental contextand human memory. Memory and Cognition, 6, 342-353.

Thomson, D.M. (1981). Person identification: influencing the outcome. Australianand New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 14, 49-54.

Thomson, D.M. (1984). Context effects on recognition memory: a developmentalstudy. Paper presented to the Experimental Psychology Conference. DeakinUniversity, Gelong, Australia.

Thomson, D.M., Robertson, S. and Vogt, R. (1982). Person recognition: theeffect of context, Human Learning, 1,137-154.

Tiberghien, G. (1976). Reconnaissance a long termt1: pourquoi ne pas chercher?Bulletin de Psychologie, Nume'ro Special: La Mtmoire Semantique, 188-197.

Tiberghien, G. (1983). La memorie des visages. L'Annie Psychologique, 83,153-198.Tiberghien, G. (1986). Context effects in recognition memory of faces: some

theoretical problems. In H.D. Ellis, M. Jeeves, F. Newcome and A. Young (Eds),Aspects of Face Processing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nijhoff, pp. 88-104.

Tulving, E. (1976). Ecphoric processes in recognition and recall. In J. Brown(Ed.), Recall and Recognition, London, Wiley: pp. 37-74.

Tulving, E. (1982). Synergistic ecphory in recall and recognition. Canadian Journalof Psychology, 36, 130-147.

Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of Episodic Memory, New York: Oxford University Press.Tulving, E. and Thomson, D.M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes

in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-379.Watkins, M.J., Ho, E., and Tulving, E. (1976). Context effects in recognition

memory for faces. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 505-517.Winograd, E. and Rivers-Bulkeley, N.T. (1977). Effects of changing context

on remembering faces. Journal of Experimental • Psychology, Human Learningand Memory, 3, 397-405.

Young, A., Hay, D.C. and Ellis, A.W. (1985). The faces that launched a thousandslips: everyday difficulties in recognising people, British Journal of Psychology,76, 495-524.