↓ Skip to main content

The hows and whys of face memory: level of construal influences the recognition of human faces

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The hows and whys of face memory: level of construal influences the recognition of human faces
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01524
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie A. Wyer, Timothy J. Hollins, Sabine Pahl, Jean Roper

Abstract

Three experiments investigated the influence of level of construal (i.e., the interpretation of actions in terms of their meaning or their details) on different stages of face memory. We employed a standard multiple-face recognition paradigm, with half of the faces inverted at test. Construal level was manipulated prior to recognition (Experiment 1), during study (Experiment 2) or both (Experiment 3). The results support a general advantage for high-level construal over low-level construal at both study and at test, and suggest that matching processing style between study and recognition has no advantage. These experiments provide additional evidence in support of a link between semantic processing (i.e., construal) and visual (i.e., face) processing. We conclude with a discussion of implications for current theories relating to both construal and face processing.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 41%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,116,909
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,471
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,587
of 282,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#389
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.