Own-Race Bias

Question 1

Meissner and Brigham (2001):

Answer 1

Over twice as likely to identify own-race than other-race.
Fewer hits, more false alarms with other-race faces than with own-race faces.
False alarms worse with short exposure times, and long delays between study and test.

Question 2

Sporer (2001a):

Sporer (2001b):

Answer 2

2001a) Archival studies in Britain and Germany suggest non-Whites and non-German suspects are more likely to be identified in lineups.
2001b) (a) impaired recognition
(b) shift in response bias (increased false positives, due to increased readiness to say “seen before”).
ORB generally strongest for Whites recognising other races – but occurs with many different races.

Question 3

Explanations for Own-Race Bias (ORB):

Answer 3

Prejudice
Physiognomic variability: Little evidence for this (Goldstein and Chance 1979)
Inter-racial contact: Most studies find increased contact reduces ORB

Question 4

Role of experience in development of ORB:

Answer 4

Kelly et al (2005):
Newborns – no preference for own- vs. other-race faces.
3 month olds – own-race preference evident.

Kelley et al (2007):
6- and 9-month olds, but not 3-month olds, show ORB in recognition.

Sangrigoli et al (2005):
3-9 year old Korean children adoptd by Caucasian families in Europe showed reversed own-race bias.

Early experience produces a bias towards better recognition of faces within that culture.

Question 5

In-group/out-group model of face processing.

Answer 5

1. In-group face - automatic configural processing.

2. Out-group - face categorisation occurs, and step 1 is bypassed.

Question 6

5 factors influence identifying an other-race face:

Answer 6

1. Attentional processes at encoding: may be influenced by social disregard cues or categorization processes (which may lead to inadequate processing).
2. Perceptual expertise (related to contact).
3. Distinctiveness of target compared to other people in that ethinic group: may not be apparent to out-group witness.
4. Difficulty of task, affected by inter-item similarity and fairness of a lineup (constructed by out-group member).
5. Social factors, e.g. witness’ motivation to make a positive identification, biased lineup instructions, police officers’ expectations.

Question 7

Face-space models and perceptual expertise:
Valentine (1991):
Bar-Haim, Saidel and Yovel (2009):

Answer 7

1) Other-race faces are encoded in Multi-Dimensional Face Space with respect to inappropriate own-race norms.
2) Recognition of Caucasian and African faces with digitally-altered skin colour. Facial structure is more important than colour

Question 8

Perceptual Factors in ORB:
Hayward, Rhodes and Schwaninger (2007):
Hills and Pake (2013):

Answer 8

1) Old/new recognition task (10 old, 10 new). Own-race recognition advantage for both scrambled and blurred faces, implying ORB influences on both facial configurations and features.
2) Black and white observers fixate faces differently (and fixate the other race in the same way as their own).
Black observers fixate nose, white observers fixate eyes.
Cueing reverses the ORB.

Question 9

“Ambiguous race face effect” - “Hispanic hair”

Answer 9

Hispanic participants who saw composites with “hispanic” hair recognised them better than hispanic participants who saw same composites but with “black” hair.

Question 10

Motivational factors in other-race effect?

Answer 10

• Own gender
• Own age
• Harrison and Hole (2009): Trainee teachers better than other students at recognising children’s faces.
• Oxytocin enhances memory for other-race faces if taken before, but not after, viewing faces: Blandon-Gitlin, Pezdek, Saldivar and Steelman 2013): Facilitates attention to socially-significant face regions (eyes, reduces the amygdala activity so you don’t have an “emotional” response to faces.