Caitlin M. Fausey

Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory.

Does eye-witness memory differ depending on the language one speaks? We examined English and Spanish speakers’ descriptions of intentional and accidental events, and their memory for the agents of these events. English and Spanish speakers described intentional events similarly, using mostly agentive language (e.g., “She broke the vase”). However, when it came to accidental events English speakers used more agentive language than did Spanish speakers. Results from a non-linguistic memory task mirrored the patterns in language. English and Spanish speakers remembered the agents of intentional events equally well. However, English speakers remembered the agents of accidental events better than did Spanish speakers. Together these findings demonstrate that there are cross-linguistic differences in event descriptions that have important consequences for eye-witness memory.

Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability

When bad things happen, how do we decide who is to blame and how much they should be punished? In the present studies, we examined whether subtly different linguistic descriptions of accidents influence how much people blame and punish those involved. In three studies, participants judged how much people involved in particular accidents should be blamed and how much they should have to pay for the resulting damage. The language used to describe the accidents differed subtly across conditions: Either agentive (transitive) or nonagentive (intransitive) verb forms were used. Agentive descriptions led participants to attribute more blame and request higher financial penalties than did nonagentive descriptions. Further, linguistic framing influenced judgments, even when participants reasoned about a well-known event, such as the “wardrobe malfunction” of Super Bowl 2004. Importantly, this effect of language held, even when people were able to see a video of the event. These results demonstrate that even when people have rich established knowledge and visual information about events, linguistic framing can shape event construal, with important real-world consequences. Subtle differences in linguistic descriptions can change how people construe what happened, attribute blame, and dole out punishment. Supplemental results and analyses may be downloaded from http://pbr.psychonomic-journals .org/content/supplemental.

Constructing Agency: The Role of Language

Is agency a straightforward and universal feature of human experience? Or is the construction of agency (including attention to and memory for people involved in events) guided by patterns in culture? In this paper we focus on one aspect of cultural experience: patterns in language. We examined English and Japanese speakers’ descriptions of intentional and accidental events. English and Japanese speakers described intentional events similarly, using mostly agentive language (e.g., “She broke the vase”). However, when it came to accidental events English speakers used more agentive language than did Japanese speakers. We then tested whether these different patterns found in language may also manifest in cross-cultural differences in attention and memory. Results from a non-linguistic memory task showed that English and Japanese speakers remembered the agents of intentional events equally well. However, English speakers remembered the agents of accidents better than did Japanese speakers, as predicted from patterns in language. Further, directly manipulating agency in language during another laboratory task changed people’s eye-witness memory, confirming a possible causal role for language. Patterns in one’s linguistic environment may promote and support how people instantiate agency in context.

From faces to hands: Changing visual input in the first two years

Human development takes place in a social context. Two pervasive sources of social information are faces and hands. Here, we provide the first report of the visual frequency of faces and hands in the everyday scenes available to infants. These scenes were collected by having infants wear head cameras during unconstrained everyday activities. Our corpus of 143hours of infant-perspective scenes, collected from 34 infants aged 1month to 2years, was sampled for analysis at 1/5Hz. The major finding from this corpus is that the faces and hands of social partners are not equally available throughout the first two years of life. Instead, there is an earlier period of dense face input and a later period of dense hand input. At all ages, hands in these scenes were primarily in contact with objects and the spatio-temporal co-occurrence of hands and faces was greater than expected by chance. The orderliness of the shift from faces to hands suggests a principled transition in the contents of visual experiences and is discussed in terms of the role of developmental gates on the timing and statistics of visual experiences.

Contributions of Head-Mounted Cameras to Studying the Visual Environments of Infants and Young Children

Head-mounted video cameras (with and without an eye camera to track gaze direction) are being increasingly used to study infants’ and young childrens visual environments and provide new and often unexpected insights about the visual world from a childs point of view. The challenge in using head cameras is principally conceptual and concerns the match between what these cameras measure and the research question. Head cameras record the scene in front of faces and thus answer questions about those head-centered scenes. In this “Tools of the Trade” article, we consider the unique contributions provided by head-centered video, the limitations and open questions that remain for head-camera methods, and the practical issues of placing head cameras on infants and analyzing the generated video.

The Faces in Infant-Perspective Scenes Change over the First Year of Life

Mature face perception has its origins in the face experiences of infants. However, little is known about the basic statistics of faces in early visual environments. We used head cameras to capture and analyze over 72,000 infant-perspective scenes from 22 infants aged 1-11 months as they engaged in daily activities. The frequency of faces in these scenes declined markedly with age: for the youngest infants, faces were present 15 minutes in every waking hour but only 5 minutes for the oldest infants. In general, the available faces were well characterized by three properties: (1) they belonged to relatively few individuals; (2) they were close and visually large; and (3) they presented views showing both eyes. These three properties most strongly characterized the face corpora of our youngest infants and constitute environmental constraints on the early development of the visual system.

Why are faces denser in the visual experiences of younger than older infants

Recent evidence from studies using head cameras suggests that the frequency of faces directly in front of infants declines over the first year and a half of life, a result that has implications for the development of and evolutionary constraints on face processing. Two experiments tested 2 opposing hypotheses about this observed age-related decline in the frequency of faces in infant views. By the people-input hypothesis, there are more faces in view for younger infants because people are more often physically in front of younger than older infants. This hypothesis predicts that not just faces but views of other body parts will decline with age. By the face-input hypothesis, the decline is strictly about faces, not people or other body parts in general. Two experiments, 1 using a time-sampling method (84 infants, 3 to 24 months in age) and the other analyses of head camera images (36 infants, 1 to 24 months) provide strong support for the face-input hypothesis. The results suggest developmental constraints on the environment that ensure faces are prevalent early in development.