1
Putting a name to a face:
An examination of the relationship between the processing of names and faces.
The ability to pair a name with a face is important in our society, as it is essential to the
recognition of people. However, the cognitive mechanism underlying this pairing is still
debated.
This experiment aimed to answer whether there is an inherent relationship between
the processing of names and faces. Forty-nine Wellesley College undergraduate students
completed 4 study/test blocks in which they studied abstract nouns alone, proper names alone,
abstract nouns paired with faces, and proper names paired with faces. They then identified the
previously studied word in a forced choice task. We hypothesized that the pairing of a name
with a face would enhance memory for that name. Contrary to our prediction, however, faces
impaired memory for names, and had no effect on memory for abstract nouns. Though the
results are not what we predicted, they do indicate that the processes of memory for names and
faces are not independent.
Results
The number of studied stimuli correctly identified in a forced choice task was measured
and averaged for each experimental condition. A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA with
independent variables of stimulus type (abstract noun vs. proper name) and presentation (word
alone vs. word with a face) was completed for this experiment. Results show the main effect of
stimulus type was significant (F(1, 49) = 8.94, p < .05), indicating that abstract nouns were
recalled better than proper names regardless of presentation. Results also showed the main effect
of presentation to be significant (F(1, 49) = 18.51, p < .001). This indicates that both abstract
nouns and proper names presented alone are recalled better than presented paired with a face. As
seen in Table 1, the mean number of words correctly recalled for proper names when presented
2
alone is 75.7. This number is larger than any other condition, accounts for the main effects
observed, and points to an interaction.
Critically, the interaction of presentation by stimulus type is significant (p = .019). This
shows that presentation does differ across stimulus type. More specifically for proper names,
performance was better when the names were presented alone compared to when paired with a
face, whereas for abstract nouns performance was similar when the noun was presented alone
and paired with a face. To support this, paired t tests comparing abstract nouns alone and paired
with a face, and proper names and abstract nouns both paired with faces revealed no significant
differences between number of correct answers for each of these conditions, t(49) = 1.265, p >
.200, and t(49) = -1.018, p > .300, respectively. In contrast, the number of correct answers for
proper names alone was significantly higher than those for abstract nouns alone, t(49) = -3.650, p
= .001, and proper names paired with a face, t(49) = 4.707, p < .001.
Additionally, the results showed that there was no significant effect of order on stimulus
type (F(1, 49) = .646, p > .80) nor on presentation (F(1, 49) = 1.83, p > .05). Thus,
counterbalancing was successful as participants were unaffected regardless of the order in which
the study/test blocks were presented.
3
Table 1
Mean Number of Correct Answers for Nouns and Names With and Without Faces
Word Alone
Paired with Face
Mean
Abstract Nouns
69.2
67.5
68.3
Proper Names
75.4
69.3
72.3
Mean
72.3
68.4
4
Figure 1: Mean Number of Correct Answers for Nouns and Names With and Without Faces. ±2
SE.
5
Abstract Noun
79
Proper Names
Mean Correct Answers
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
Word Alone
Paired with Face