↓ Skip to main content

Memory for faces: the effect of facial appearance and the context in which the face is encountered

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Memory for faces: the effect of facial appearance and the context in which the face is encountered
Published in
Psychological Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00426-014-0554-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katia Mattarozzi, Alexander Todorov, Maurizio Codispoti

Abstract

We investigated the effects of appearance of emotionally neutral faces and the context in which the faces are encountered on incidental face memory. To approximate real-life situations as closely as possible, faces were embedded in a newspaper article, with a headline that specified an action performed by the person pictured. We found that facial appearance affected memory so that faces perceived as trustworthy or untrustworthy were remembered better than neutral ones. Furthermore, the memory of untrustworthy faces was slightly better than that of trustworthy faces. The emotional context of encoding affected the details of face memory. Faces encountered in a neutral context were more likely to be recognized as only familiar. In contrast, emotionally relevant contexts of encoding, whether pleasant or unpleasant, increased the likelihood of remembering semantic and even episodic details associated with faces. These findings suggest that facial appearance (i.e., perceived trustworthiness) affects face memory. Moreover, the findings support prior evidence that the engagement of emotion processing during memory encoding increases the likelihood that events are not only recognized but also remembered.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 68%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 12 12%
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 10 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#758
of 982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,510
of 222,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 982 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 222,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.