A previous experiment by Shepherd, Deregowski and Ellis (1974) showed that white subjects are better at remembering white faces than black faces, and that black subjects are superior at recognizing black compared with white faces. The present experiment was designed to investigate the frequencies with which white and black subjects use different facial features when describing faces. It was found that black and white subjects did differ in their descriptions of faces, which was interpreted as reflecting differences in attention to the various aspects of facial detail. The difference in attention deployment is suggested as a possible basis for the earlier reported differences in recognition memory for white and black faces by white and black subjects.

This paper examines the contribution of cross-cultural studies to our understanding of the perception and representation of space. A cross-cultural survey of the basic difficulties in understanding pictures—ranging from the failure to recognise a picture as a representation to the inability to recognise the object represented in the picture— indicates that similar difficulties occur in pictorial and nonpictorial cultrues. The experimental work on pictorial space derives from two distinct traditions: the study of picture perception in “remote” populations and the study of the perceptual illusions. A comprison of the findings on pictorial space perception with those on real space perceptual illusions. A comparison of findings on pictorial space perception with those on real space perception and perceptual constancy suggersts that cross-cultural differences in the perception of both real and representational space involve two different types of skills: those related exclusively to either real space or representational space, and those related to both. Different cultural groups use different skills to perform the same perceptual tasks.

There is a popular belief that faces of members of races different from one's own 'look more alike' than those of one's own race. Empirical evidence shows that they differ in memorability. The present study was carried out to test the hypothesis that European and Afiican subjects differ from each other in the cues they use to discriminate among faces of their own and of the other race. Subjects reported the cues by carrying out sorting of triads of faces, and subsequently rating all faces on these cues. INDSCAL analyses were applied to the data. With racially homogeneous sets of faces, European and African subjects did not differ in the basis on which judgements were made, although both used different bases for African than for European faces. When a racially heterogeneous set of faces was used, European subjects discriminated primarily in terms o f racial features, but African subjects used a greater variety of cues.It is a common experience that the faces of members of other races appear to be more similar to each other than do the faces of members of one's own race. In spite of this strong intuitive impression, there is little direct evidence relevant to the problem. Goldstein and his co-workers (Goldstein & Chance, 1976 have compared latencies for same/different judgements between Caucasian faces and between Japanese faces with white American subjects, but have found no consistent effect for race of faces.On the other hand, results of a number of experiments demonstrate that the faces of members of other races are more difficult to remember than the faces of members of one's own race. These results have been obtained in studies varying in methods, subject populations and race of the faces used. American studies have found the effect among black and white grade school children and college students (Feinman & Entwistle, 1976;Malpass & Kravitz, 1969;Galper, 1973), and among white college students for white and oriental faces (Chance et al., 1975); while a British study has found that black Rhodesian soldiers and their female relations as well as white British soldiers and British schoolgirls also remember own-racc faces better than those of the other race (Shepherd el uf., 1974).In spite of the robustness of the effect, no convincing explanation for the phenomenon has been offered. It is possible that subjects pay more attention to and are more interested in faces of members of their own race than they are in those of members of other races. As a result they individualize own-race faces while responding in a categorical, stereotyped manner to other-race faces. Evidence consistent with this hypothesis comes from studies such as those of Galper (1973), where white students in a black studies course showed less o f an own-race effect in face memory than white psychology students, and of Fcinman el af. (1976), who found that subjects from racially integrated census tracts showed less of an own-race effect than subjects from racially segregated tracts. However, these results can be explained by alternative hypotheses...

A sample of Me'en (Mekan) drawn from a population having minimal contact with pictorial materials was found to be able to recognise correctly, albeit gradually and with a degree of effort, clearly depicted animals. They did make however some responses which in the west would be considered anomalous, and appeared to find the task stressful.

The effect of orientation upon haptic perception of the L and T figures presented in S's frontoparallel plane and in a horizontal plane in front of him was investigated. The data confirm the importance of the section effect and suggest that this effect is independent both of the inclination of the stimulus within a plane and of the plane within which it is presented. A theoretical curve showing the relationship between the radial and tagential components of haptic exploration was derived and found, prima facie, to provide a satisfactory approximation to the data. 1 We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Rosalind Heaton in collecting the data.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to J.