Putting a perceptual memory into words can make it harder to recognise afterwards, because the verbal description displaces the detail it could not capture.
Schooler's subjects who described a face in writing subsequently identified it less accurately than those who described nothing. The explanation offered is that a verbal account captures the reportable features and the recognition system then uses the account. It has direct consequences for eyewitness procedure, where a description is routinely taken before a line-up.
In practice
- A witness asked to write a description before viewing a line-up has been given a task that may impair the identification.
- A taster asked to explain a preference in words becomes less consistent at picking the same sample again.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is that a verbal account captures the reportable features and then competes with the perceptual memory it could not capture, so recognition is answered from the description rather than the image.
- In its favour
- A large registered replication found the effect present, which is more than several famous findings of the same era managed, and the mechanism connects to well-established differences between recognition and recall.
- Against it
- The original effect was large and the replication found it substantially smaller, so the practical implications for witness interviewing are correspondingly weaker than first claimed.
- Standing
- The original effect was large and a large registered replication found it substantially smaller but present. A genuine effect at a fraction of the reported size.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- A century and a half of measuring the mind