Week 9 RF-The other race effect Flashcards

1
Q

What was found in Meissner & Brigham’s (2001) meta-analysis?

A
  • People are more likely to correctly recognise a face of their own race (greater
    number of true positive identifications) and incorrectly recognise a face of another race (greater number of false positive identifications).
  • People are more cautious to say that they have seen own race faces (more conservative criterion) than other race faces (more liberal criterion i.e., much more likely to say you have seen this person before=greater false positives).
  • Shorter exposures and longer retention intervals increase the other race effect
    (own>other) suggesting a link between weak encoding and face effect.
  • Research has a clear and important applied focus in relation to eyewitness
    testimony.
  • The ORE can be found across racial groups.
  • Caucasians show good discrimination for Caucasian faces, Black for Black,
    Chinese for Chinese but a relative impairment for others
  • Some early evidence that white participants show greater other race effect than (at least) black participants.
  • Amount of interracial contact is a significant but weak predictor of the ORE
  • Racial attitudes do not appear relevant (but difficult to measure reliably and
    meaningfully)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Does other race contact matter?

A

■ Meissner & Brigham’s (2001) meta-analysis found significant but weak correlations (r= -.13) with amount of contact.

■ A more recent meta-analysis (Singh et al. 2021) replicated the earlier findings (r= -.15) and identified additional moderators:
– If we experimentally manipulate contact (i.e. train participants), effects are higher than if we simply measure individual differences in other race contact.
– Contact early in life (infancy and childhood) with other race groups reduces the ORE more than later contact (adolescence and adulthood) suggesting the need for hard-wired changes in the brain.

■ BUT, quantity and quality of ORE contact is difficult to measure accurately and studies vary widely in the instruments they use making any firm conclusions difficult. (e.g., the use of Likert scales will not capture the meaningfulness of relationships and contact with other race groups)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the Developmental evidence for the ORE? (Kelly et al., 2007)

A
  • Infant studies rely on indirect measures of memory (because we can’t just ask them). Memory is inferred by measuring how long infants spent looking at novel faces in pairs consisting of a novel and a studied face.
  • Infants show habituation to studied faces. These faces have become familiar and therefore there is no need to explore
    them as much as novel faces.
  • Looking to the novel face for longer suggests memory for the studied face in the pair. No difference in looking times suggests lack of memory.

Findings:
* Early and gradual development of memory effect.

  • No effect at 3 months (i.e., no preference in race) but it appears fully developed by 9 months.
  • There was also some evidence that at 6 months, infants were more likely to look at novel Chinese and Caucasian faces than
    expected by chance-see dotted baseline at 50%.
  • Although the mean looking times for African and Middle-Eastern faces at 6 months were similar to Chinese and
    Caucasian faces, infant responses were more varied.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Developmental Evidence: Although other race effects can appear quite early, do they remain fixed or can they be reversed? (Sangrigoli et al., 2005)

A
  • Korean adults who between the ages of 3-9 years were adopted and raised by Caucasian families in Europe showed a memory effect for Caucasian and not Asian faces.
  • It appears that the system or processes responsible for other race effects are plastic (i.e. subject to change). Theories of the effects should include mechanisms to account for such plasticity.
  • Recent evidence suggests that this “other race face plasticity” ends by the age of 12 (McKone et al ., 2019).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are Face processing resources?

A
  • If processing own race faces is more resource demanding, then reducing our available resources should eliminate the other race effect.
  • Reduced other race effect
  • If processing of other race faces is more laborious (resource intensive), then reducing available resources should increase the other race effect.
  • Greater other race effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is The role of attention on the other race effect? (Zhou et al., 2015)

A
  • Zhou et al. manipulated attention to examine the effects of resource availability and allocation in the ORE.
  • One group studied own and other race faces under full attention conditions. A second group had their attention divided between face processing and another task (tone detection).
  • The results showed that under full attention there was a clear other race
    effect (own>other). With divided attention the effect disappeared (own=other).
  • Own race processing is more attention and resource intensive. We engage
    same processes more or use additional processes when dealing with own race faces.
  • In agreement with findings of slower race classification of own compared
    with other race faces which suggests that own race faces receive additional
    processing.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are Expertise-based theories of the other race effect?

A
  • Expertise theories: Lack of contact between races (racial segregation) responsible for developing greater expertise in processing and/or remembering members of the same race better than those of other races.
  • Developmental evidence discussed earlier is in line with the predictions of expertise
    theories.
  • No initial differentiation but effect develops quickly.
  • Effect can be reversed at least at a young age.
  • Two main expertise-based theories: differential processing mechanisms theory;
    representational theory.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is Configural processing?

A
  • Faces are processed configurally: Configural processing involves the extraction of the relationships between permanent facial features (e.g. eyes, nose,
    mouth) and enables the processing of the face as a whole rather than a collection of individual features.
  • Face-specific processing detected early in brain potentials (differences in ERPs visible by 200ms).
  • Evidence of configural processing can be seen in studies that present inverted
    (upside down) faces.
  • Inversion disturbs the relationship between features (e.g. eyes no longer above
    nose and nose no longer above mouth). Recognition accuracy drops significantly for all inverted faces.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the link between Configural processing and the other race effect? (Rhodes et al., 1989)

A
  • Configural processing is related to expertise. We are more likely to process something as a whole if we have a lot of experience with the particular item.
  • Reduced contact with other race faces will make them less likely to be processed
    configurally.
  • If same race faces are processed configurally but other race faces are not, then face inversion will affect same races faces more than other race faces.
  • Rhodes et al. (1989) found exactly this. Viewed inverted, other race faces were recognised equally well to same race faces.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Representational models: What is The face space model?

A
  • Representational models explain the face race effect with regards to memory
    representations.
  • No difference in how faces are processed initially
  • The face-space model (Valentine, 1991) assumes that each facial feature and inter
    feature relationships are normally distributed in a population and represented as dimensions of the face’s memory representation.
  • Multiple dimensions define face space and this changes based off the number of faces we see
  • Each face is encoded on each dimension and represented in memory space by its
    coordinates. Most faces will be close to the average with few outliers
  • Typical and atypical faces
  • The number of dimensions is defined by and evolves with the number of exemplars. Same race faces are more frequent and will be responsible for shaping the dimensions. The more dimensions, the greater the spread of exemplars in face-space (more distinctive).
  • Other race faces may not conform fully to the established dimensions and will be
    seen as atypical and will be represented by fewer dimensions. As a result they will
    be represented in a smaller, denser face-space.
  • It will be more difficult to distinguish between other race faces than for same race faces and recognition will suffer.
  • More false alarms for other race faces
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are some Critiques of the experience-based models?

A
  • Meissner & Brigham’s (2001) meta-analysis
  • There is only weak evidence that amount of contact with other race faces is responsible for the other race effect in adults.
  • But that may be due to the fact that measures of contact rely on self-report and are not particularly sensitive.
  • But quality of interracial contact may be a better measure
  • Will consider individuation studies later.
  • Not all studies have found evidence that disruption of configural processes eliminates the other race effect.
  • In the face-space model, the actual dimensions are not specified. Training to improve discrimination has short-term effects. We look into some findings that experience-based models cannot easily explain.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happens with angry faces?

A

Angry facial expressions capture our attention (more resources allocated)
because:
* Signify threatening intent and potential danger. Should be detected!

  • It is also important to encode individuating characteristics of angry persons to make sure you remember them even when angry expression disappears (as the threatening intent may still be present).
  • Anger expressed by out groups may be perceived more threatening than in groups.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happens with angry faces? (Ackerman et al., 2006)

A
  • An other race effect was only seen with
    neutral faces.
  • Angry faces were recognised equally well
    across races (i.e., ORE eliminated) so perhaps we can eliminate it in an adult population.
  • This finding is difficult for processing and
    representational theories to explain.
  • It is not clear how people overcome
    fundamental processing and representational shortcomings without
    extensive training.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is The ambiguous-race face effect? (MacLin & Malpass, 2001; 2003)

A
  • What happens when the faces are racially
    ambiguous?
  • Faces (on the right) are identical apart from a single, race specifying characteristic (hair).
  • According to experience-based models there should be no memory differences between the Hispanic and Black looking faces.
  • Yet, Hispanic participants were more likely to remember the Hispanic looking faces than the Black looking faces.
  • “…other race faces are encoded categorically and …categorization drives the perceptual process” (MacLin & Malpass, 2001, p.112)

-There is an element of social categorisation and that we apply a different type of processing which is socially derived rather than expert derived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What evidence shows that Race is not the only issue? (Wiese et al., 2013)

A
  • Several studies (e.g. Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012; Wiese et al. 2013) show other age effects where young and old participants tend to remember faces of their respective age groups better.
  • Others report differences in face recognition based on sex (Herlitz & Loven, 2013) with women more likely to remember female than male faces. No sex bias is seen
    in men.
  • expert accounts fails to account for these face biases.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Social Bias: What is The in-group face effect?

A
  • Race may also confound social factors.
  • If so, we should recognize “in-group” faces better than “out-group” faces even when all faces are of the same race.

Bernstein et al. (2007):
* Tested Miami University students’ memory for faces they believed depicted members of either the same or a different University

  • A control group saw the same faces but without affiliation information.
  • In a second experiment, participants were told that one group (e.g. red) matched their own personality group (in-group) whereas faces on green background did not (out group).

-More likely to remember the faces associated with their University

-The in and out-group can be dynamic (e.g., you support liverpool football group but are Italian so support Italy in the World Cup).

-We can create biases artificially by stressing existing differentiations or creating these nominal groups

-NOT causal (i.e., raises the possibility but does NOT prove it)

17
Q

What are socio-cognitive models in regards to the ORE?

A

Explain other race effects as a result of social factors:
* Own Race=in group
* Other Race(s)=out group

  • As we have seen previously, group membership of a real or artificial group can have powerful effects on face processing and face recognition.
  • Socio-cognitive models can also explain other face effect phenomena: Other age effect, other sex effect, etc.
  • If true, other race effects can be susceptible to change of social dynamics and thus reversible.
  • But they still consider expertise with other race faces to play a role.
18
Q

What’s the In group/out-group model- Sporer (2001)?

A
  • Social perception is the first step in face processing

In-group faces follow a series of default, automatic processing steps:
* Automatic in this model does not mean effortless
* Configural coding due to expertise with faces
* Level of memory performance and response criterion will depend on test
conditions

  • Out-group faces have an extra initial step: categorisation as an outgroup. This
    may be triggered by an obvious visual characteristic (skin colour, hair, nose, etc.).

Depending on contextual factors different processes may follow outgroup faces:
* Cognitive disregard stops encoding and redirects attention.
* Superficial processing and stereotyping leads to inferences (“dark eyes go
with darker skin”).
* Lack of expertise leads to adoption of incorrect dimensions and criteria (e.g.
hair may not be a differentiating characteristic for a specific race)
* Verbal processing leads to replacement of visual with verbal coding which is
not useful when face similarity is high
* All factors make discrimination between targets and distractors difficult
leading to reduced recognition and more false memories

19
Q

What is the Categorisation-Individuation-Motivation Model? (Hugenberg et al., 2013)

A

3 component-model:
1. Motivation to individuate
2. Categorisation - Individuation
3. Individuation experience

20
Q

What is Categorisation-Individuation?

A

Categorisation focuses on shared characteristics of a group of exemplars:
* Aim is to confirm/reject category inclusion
* Quick, effortless, spontaneous process

Individuation focuses on facial characteristics unique to the individual
exemplar’s identity:
* Aim is to process what makes the individual unique
* Effortful and resource intensive (effects of attention discussed earlier)

21
Q

What is Individuation Motivation?

A
  • Motivation to individuate required for process to take place. Motivation modulates attention and deeper processing.
  • Categorisation appears as the default form of processing in many everyday
    contexts.
  • Do you remember the face of the bus driver?
  • Change blindness (failed to notice the individual has changed due to no interest in processing face).
  • Other race effects emerge partly because we lack motivation to individuate other race faces. Same applies for age and more complex for sex effect.
22
Q

How does Motivation interact with the perceptual experience?

A
  • Motivation to individuate is likely to vary depending on pre-existing social differences as well as current demands and needs.
  • Perceptual experience with other race faces is not sufficient for individuating
    processing; it has to be coupled with motivation to do so.
  • On the other hand, motivation in the absence of perceptual experience will
    result in limited improvements in performance.
23
Q

How can we eliminate race effect-Individuation? (Hugenberg et al., 2007; Rhodes et al., 2009)

A
  • Individuating processing
  • Can we eliminate the other race effect by encouraging participants to engage in the processing of individual characteristics of other race faces?

Studies provide instructions that inform participants of the other race effect and ask them to:
* “…pay close attention to what differentiates one particular face from another face, especially when that face is
not of the same race as you … Remember, pay very close attention to the faces, especially when they are of a different race than you in order to try to avoid this Cross Race Effect.’‘ (Hugenberg et al 2007, p. 336-337)

  • Some studies find an effect of eliminating the ORE, some don’t (may be due to the level of contact with other racial groups prior).
24
Q

How have some argued to eliminate the race effect?

A
  • If the other race effect is due to in-group effect (i.e. social categorisation e.g., university group) can we eliminate it by manipulating social categorisation? An earlier study did not support this (Shriver et al. 2008) as race categorisation is considered automatic.
  • Hehman et al. (2010) suggested that the ORE can be eliminated when (same) group affiliation is reinforced by spatially grouping together Caucasian and black faces during encoding.
  • But Kloth et al. (2014) failed to replicate these findings. In their study, the ORE was present irrespective of the way faces were grouped on the screen.
  • One reason for the discrepancy might be the value placed on in-group identity by different participants across studies.