Cultural Differences in Memory for Objects and Backgrounds in Pictures

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate cultural differences in memory for individual objects and backgrounds that have been studied together in one picture. Thirty-six Caucasian Canadians in Toronto and 36 Han Chinese in Beijing were tested with a picture recognition paradigm. At encoding, participants viewed 60 line drawing pictures, each containing an object and a background scene. Participants then recognized these objects and backgrounds in isolation, and were asked to report subjectively whether they allocated their attention toward the objects, backgrounds, or both during encoding. In general, we did not find any cultural difference in memory for the isolated objects. However, Canadian participants showed significantly better memory for backgrounds than Chinese participants. Our supplementary data suggested that this effect appeared primarily among participants who self-reported paying attention to both objects and backgrounds. We speculated that relative to Canadian participants, Chinese participants might be more likely to engage in a holistic processing style and thus spontaneously bind background scenes with their associated focal objects when viewing both elements in pictures, which made it more difficult for them to “unbind” the information and recognize backgrounds in isolation. The results of this study add new insights into cultural differences in memory for individual elements in pictures.

Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports

“…None of the cultural groups appear to have processed background information deeply (cf. central details; Wong et al, ) as, regardless of cultural background, central details dominated in the memory reports provided. This finding does not align with previous research suggesting collectivistic cultures attend holistically to a visual field (Istomin et al, ).…”

“…However, other results have been inconclusive with respect to cultural differences in memory reporting. For example, Wong, Yin, Yang, Li, and Spaniol () compared Canadian and Chinese participants with respect to memory for individual and background objects of picture scenes. Participants were exposed to picture drawings containing focal and background scenes and later reported whether they attended to the focal or background scene.…”

The acculturation effect and eyewitness memory reports among migrants

“…Participants rated the stimuli to adequately represent setting in their respective countries (Ghanaian stimuli -M = 3.79, SD = .97; Dutch stimuli -M = 3.33, SD = .62) and also reflect plausible crime scenes (Ghanaian stimuli -M = 3.43, SD = 1.28; Dutch stimuli -M = 3.47, SD = .83). Consistent with previous studies, we operationalized centrality both in terms of importance to the plot and visual centrality (Boduroglu et al, 2009;Mahé, Corson, Verrier, & Payoux, 2015;Wong, Yin, Yang, Li, & Spaniol, 2017;Wyler & Oswald, 2016). To confirm what constituted central and background event(s), participants in the pilot test made centrality judgements.…”

Considering the native land of witnesses

“…Although research shows culture may shape memory, findings from other research is somewhat inconsistent with previous studies. For example, in a study on cultural differences in memory for focal and background details, the authors found that Canadians had better memory for background objects than did Chinese (Wong, Yin, Yang, Li, & Spaniol, 2017). They also did not find a cultural difference in memory for focal objects.…”

“…However, other results have been inconclusive with respect to cultural differences in memory reporting. For example, Wong et al (2017) compared Canadian and Chinese participants with respect to memory for individual and background objects of picture scenes. Participants were exposed to picture drawings containing focal and background scenes and later reported whether they attended to the focal or background scene.…”