Recent developments in the study of cognitive facial recognition have perceived a determination that there are several areas that function to facilitate this action. The purpose of the study performed by WB Thompson, JH Mueller was to verify the hemispheric conditions and limitations in facial recognition. The core consideration was the aspect that primarily lateralisation of cortical functioning has consistently used facial stimulation. This has been conjectured due to the concept that recognition of a face is processed differently between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. To facilitate this research a group of psychology students were tested. Using a standard set of visual prompts and cues, with the intention to study the way personality
…show more content…
The first was the Study Phase, the second the Testing Phase and the final was the completion of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) test (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968). The study involved the use of the 40 prepared slides, with each slide preceded with a specific decision that the subject was required to make based on the face. A previous scaling as defined by Mueller et all (1983) was used to determine the personality dimensions that may be involved. Each subject was asked to give a rate on a nine point scale the extent to which the approach of a stranger caused a sense of arousal. A range of specific trait based adjectives were selected, using such sources as Anderson’s (1968) were used to clarify subject’s judgements. With a selection of the lowest five of the overall ten lowest judgement perceptions were used to signify the non-arousing decision. Each of these had been rated at less than 3.0 on the 9 point scale. In conjunction to this the five of the subsequent highest, being rated at 6.1 and higher, were used to signify arousal …show more content…
Such as to clarify that extraversion had little to no effect on facial memory and recognition. From the outset of the research test, the predictability of such an effect would be considered tentative. With the acceptance that there would be other methods and task that could be employed to verify if extroverts and introverts differ in any way with regards to hemispheric functioning (left, right). Thompson and Muller express that from the data extracted from this test it would be improbable to support such a hypothesis or conclusion.
Secondly, it was agreed that Swenson and Tucker (1983) had found evidence for proof of a correlation, were as Thompson and Mueller (1983) were not able to replicate the same results. This lack of congruity between the two tests may propose that either the effect is not vigorous or that there are circumstantial conditions that such effects may need to be present for the results to be replicated and found to be the
The first was the Study Phase, the second the Testing Phase and the final was the completion of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) test (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968). The study involved the use of the 40 prepared slides, with each slide preceded with a specific decision that the subject was required to make based on the face. A previous scaling as defined by Mueller et all (1983) was used to determine the personality dimensions that may be involved. Each subject was asked to give a rate on a nine point scale the extent to which the approach of a stranger caused a sense of arousal. A range of specific trait based adjectives were selected, using such sources as Anderson’s (1968) were used to clarify subject’s judgements. With a selection of the lowest five of the overall ten lowest judgement perceptions were used to signify the non-arousing decision. Each of these had been rated at less than 3.0 on the 9 point scale. In conjunction to this the five of the subsequent highest, being rated at 6.1 and higher, were used to signify arousal …show more content…
Such as to clarify that extraversion had little to no effect on facial memory and recognition. From the outset of the research test, the predictability of such an effect would be considered tentative. With the acceptance that there would be other methods and task that could be employed to verify if extroverts and introverts differ in any way with regards to hemispheric functioning (left, right). Thompson and Muller express that from the data extracted from this test it would be improbable to support such a hypothesis or conclusion.
Secondly, it was agreed that Swenson and Tucker (1983) had found evidence for proof of a correlation, were as Thompson and Mueller (1983) were not able to replicate the same results. This lack of congruity between the two tests may propose that either the effect is not vigorous or that there are circumstantial conditions that such effects may need to be present for the results to be replicated and found to be the