This essay will compare and contrast the feature analysis theory which is supported by Shepherd, Davis and Ellis (1981), with the Holistic Form Theory which is supported by Bruce and Young (1986). It will first compare the two theories, then the evidence that supports these theories and then finally use Burton's (1990) IAC model to criticize both theories.
The feature analysis theory basically states that we recognise a face by its individual features. This makes it a bottom up theory, as we see the individual features as being more important than the face. We call these FRU's. FRU's are Face Recognition Units. An FRU could be the eyes, nose or mouth of a person. We would call these the internal FRU's. The external FRU's would include the hair, neck, ears, or jewelry of a person. The theory was introduced with the understanding that someone recognises a face by one single FRU. They found that the most remembered feature on someone's face is the eyes. Occasionally, somebody had a more significant feature, like a large nose, or prominent teeth. They also found that people you have not met but you have seen (such as a celebrity), external feature are the ones that are most easily recogniseable. Internal features on a person are more easily recognised, when the person is more familiar, such as a member of family. Also, internal features are more reliable in long term memory as people frequently change the colour and style of their hair. As a face is recognised by its individual feature, global patterning is not essential for recognition of a face. Global Patterning is where the features must be in the correct order, and the correct way up. .
However, the holistic form theory says, you need the entire face for recognition to occur, and that although you need the FRU's they are not the only thing that you need to recognise a face. In fact they are only needed in one of 5 stages in face recognition.
