Many people complain that they do not photograph well. In the present study, we hypothesised that the self-face is memorized more beautifully than reality, which may result in reports of being not photogenic. We took photographs of students who were in the same university course and were familiar with one another. We then magnified or shrunk the size of their eyes (Experiment 1; N = 10) and their mouths (Experiment 2; N = 10). We asked the students to select the picture that seemed most like their classmates' real faces or their own real face. The results showed that there were significant differences between memories of their own and others' faces. Participants selected their classmates' real faces to a greater degree than the modified faces. However, participants tended to select pictures of themselves with magnified eyes and shrunken mouths more often than for their classmates. In Experiment 3 (N = 22), more male participants were included and the influence of gender and mirror-reversed images were examined. We found that there were no significant differences across gender, and the mirror reversal did not change the participants' selections. The bias of self-face recognition may reflect different memory processes for the self and others.
BrédartS. (2003). Recognising the usual orientation of one's own face: The role of asymmetrically located details. Perception, 32, 805–811. doi:10.1068/p3354
2.
CrossJ. F.CrossJ.DalyJ. (1971). Sex, race, age, and beauty as factors in recognition of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 393–396. doi:10.3758/BF03210319
3.
CunninghamM. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.925
4.
CunninghamM. R.RobertsA. R.WuC.-H. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261–279. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261
5.
DalbyL. C. (1983). Geisha. New York, NY: Vintage Books
6.
DevueC.Van der StigchelS.BrédartS.TheeuwesJ. (2009). You do not find your own face faster; you just look at it longer. Cognition, 111, 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.003
7.
DewhurstS. A.BarryC.SwannellE. R.HolmesS. J.BathurstG. L. (2007). The effect of divided attention on false memory depends on how memory is tested. Memory & Cognition, 35, 660–667. doi:10.3758/BF03193304
8.
DjikicM.PetersonJ. B.ZelazoP. D. (2005). Attentional biases and memory distortions in self-enhancers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 559–568. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.010
9.
EtcoffN. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Doubleday
10.
FeyereisenP.MaletC.MartinY. (1986). Is the faster processing of expressions of happiness modality-specific? In EllisH. D.JeevesM. A.NewcombeF.YoungA. (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 349–355). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4420-6_37
11.
GainottiG. (2005). Emotions, unconscious processes, and the right hemisphere. Neuro-Psychoanalysis, 7, 71–81. doi:10.1080/15294145.2005.10773475
12.
GreenbergS. N.Goshen-GottsteinY. (2009). Not all faces are processed equally: Evidence for featural rather than holistic processing of one's own face in a face-imaging task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 499–508. doi:10.1037/a0014640
13.
KelleyW. M.MacraeC. N.WylandC. L.CaglarS.InatiS.HeathertonT. F. (2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 785–794. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00138
14.
KeenanJ. P.McCutcheonB.FreundS.GallupG. G.SandersG.Pascual-LeoneA. (1999). Left hand advantage in a self-face recognition task. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1421–1425. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00025-1
15.
KeyesH.BradyN. (2010). Self-face recognition is characterized by “bilateral gain” and by faster, more accurate performance which persists when faces are inverted. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 840–847. doi:10.1080/17470211003611264
16.
KeyesH.BradyN.ReillyR. B.FoxeJ. J. (2010). My face or yours? Event-related potential correlates of self-face processing. Brain and Cognition, 72, 244–254. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.09.006
17.
KrugerJ. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The ‘below-average effect’ and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.221
18.
KwartD. G.FoulshamT.KingstoneA. (2012). Age and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. Perception, 41, 925–938. doi:10.1068/p7136
19.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000014
20.
LewinC.HerlitzA. (2002). Sex differences in face recognition—women's faces make the difference. Brain and Cognition, 50, 121–128. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00016-7
21.
MaY.HanS. (2010). Why we respond faster to the self than to others? An implicit positive association theory of self-advantage during implicit face recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 36, 619–633. doi:10.1037/a0015797
22.
MaY.HanS. (2012) Is the self always better than a friend? Self-face recognition in Christians and atheists. PLoS ONE, 7(5): e37824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037824
23.
OsgoodC. E.HoosainR. (1983). Pollyanna II: Two types of negativity. The Journal of Psychology, 113, 151–160. doi:10.1080/00223980.1983.9923569
24.
PostR. B.HabermanJ.IwakiL.WhitneyD. (2012). The frozen face effect: Why static photographs may not do you justice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00022
25.
SchoolerJ. W. (2002). Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 989–997. doi:10.1002/acp.930
26.
SchoolerJ. W.Engstler-SchoolerT. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90003-M
27.
RehnmanJ.HerlitzA. (2006). Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex and own-ethnicity bias. Memory, 14, 289–296. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000100
28.
RehnmanJ.HerlitzA. (2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica, 124, 344–355. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.04.004
29.
RogersT. B.KuiperN. A.KirkerW. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677–688. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677
30.
RussellR. (2003). Sex, beauty, and the relative luminance of facial features. Perception, 32, 1093–107
31.
StenbergG.WikingS.DahlM. (1998). Judging words at face value: Interference in word processing reveals automatic processing of affective facial expressions. Cognition sand Emotion, 12, 755–782. doi:10.1068/p5101
32.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5
33.
TongF.NakayamaK. (1999). Robust representations for faces: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1016–1035. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1016
34.
TurkD. J.Brady-Van den BosM.CollardP.Gillespie-SmithK.ConwayM. A.CunninghamS. J. (2013). Divided attention selectively impairs memory for self-relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 41, 503–510. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0279-0
35.
Whitfield-GabrieliS.MoranJ. M.Nieto-CastañónA.TriantafyllouC.SaxeR.GabrieliJ. D. (2011). Associations and dissociations between default and self-reference networks in the human brain. Neuroimage, 55, 225–232. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.048
36.
WrightD. B.SladdenB. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114. doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(03)00052-0
