Attention Strategies and Face Learning in Preschoolers

• In Event: Poster Session 03
  In Poster Session: PS 03 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

We used a Visual Paired Comparison (VPC) task to examine a group of rural, White preschoolers’ (N = 35, M = 52.5 months, SD = 6.55 months; 20 girls) memory for own-race (White) and other-race (Black) faces. Previous research proposed that looking differently to own- and other-race faces yields differential memory (Zhao & Bentin, 2008; Hugenberg et al., 2012). We predicted that children would show better memory for novel own-race faces compared to novel other-race faces, and that differential looking to internal face features would underlie differences in memory.
We assessed children’s memory for own- and other-race faces using a modified version of the VPC and a SMI-Red eye-tracker. In each condition, the familiar face was presented for 10-s, and that now-familiar face was paired with a novel face (of the same race) on 2 15-s test trials (left-right position of the faces changed for each test). Children’s novelty scores showed memory for both own-race faces (M = .55, SD = .10), t(60) = 2.23, p = .03, and other-race faces (M = .53, SD = .01), t(60) = 4.19, p < .001, and no significant differences in memory for the two face types, t(60) = 1.15, p = .26. This finding suggests the absence of the Other Race Effect (Anzures et al., 2013) in this group of children.
Children’s looking patterns to the eyes and mouth regions of own- and other-race faces, however, revealed differences in children’s attention to the faces. During familiarization, children spent a larger proportion of time looking to the eyes of own-race faces compared to other-race faces, t(60) = 3.20, p = .002, and spent a larger proportion of time looking to the mouth of other-race faces compared to own-race faces, t(60) = 3.26, p = .002; see Figure 1). Similarly, during test trials, for familiar faces children spent a larger proportion of time looking to the mouth of other-race compared to own-race faces, t(60) = 2.12, p = .038, and a larger proportion of time looking to the eyes of own-race compared to other-race familiar faces, t(60) = 3.60, p = .001. For novel faces, children looked proportionally longer to the mouth of own-race compared to other-race faces, t(60) = 3.59, p = .001 (see Figure 2), but did not look differently to the eyes of own-race compared to other-race faces, t(60) = -1.38, p = .17 (see Figure 2). Thus, children differentially distributed their attention to the eyes and mouth of own- and other-race faces in similar ways across both familiarization and test trials.
Although children’s memory did not reflect differences between own- and other-race faces, their gaze patterns indicated different attentional approaches. Children showed greater attention to the eyes compared to mouths of own-race faces (Amso et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2018) but divided their scanning time more equally between the regions of other-race faces. These findings suggest that this relatively homogeneous group of children utilized different strategies to learn about different faces, strategies that may ultimately yield different learning outcomes.

Authors

• Kate Kwasneski, Grinnell College
  Presenting Author

• Samuel W. Rueter, Grinnell College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ann E Ellis, Grinnell College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Lisa M Oakes, University of California - Davis
  Non-Presenting Author