Crossrace identification ownrace bias Meissner and Brigham 2001

Cross-race identification (own-race bias):

Meissner and Brigham (2001): Meta-analysis of 39 studies, over 30 years. Affects recognition, lineups, RT studies, Photofits, etc. Over twice as likely to identify own-race than other-race. Less hits, more false alarms with other-race faces than with ownrace faces. False alarms worse with short exposure times, and long delays between study and test. Robust findings, but reasons for ORB are unclear.

Sporer (2001 a): Review of non-laboratory studies of ORB. Archival studies in Britain and Germany suggest non-Whites and non-German suspects are more likely to be identified in lineups. Field studies (photospread of experimenters posing as shop "customers") show ORB. Sporer (2001 b): Two aspects to ORB: (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.

Explanations for Own-Race Bias (ORB): Prejudice: No correlation with explicit or implicit prejudice measures. Perhaps indirectly, by reducing contact with other races. Physiognomic variability: Little evidence for this (Goldstein and Chance 1979). Inter-racial contact: Most studies find increased contact reduces ORB (e. g. black South Africans: Wright, Boyd and Tredoux 2003). May do this by perceptual learning (differentiation by focusing on task-relevant facial aspects). Explains asymmetries in ORBs (strongest in whites).

Role of experience in development of ORB: 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 adopted by Caucasian families in Europe showed reversed own-race bias. Early experience produces a bias towards better recognition of faces within that culture.

Sporer (2001 b): In-group/out-group model of face processing. 1. In-group face - automatic configural processing. 2. Out-group - face categorisation occurs, and step 1 is bypassed.

Sporer (2001 b): 5 factors influence identifying an other-race face: 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 relative 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.

Valentine’s (1991) “Multidimensional Face Space” model: Eye separation Narrow Distinctive (big nose, close-set eyes) Nose length Short Long Typical Wide Distinctive (small nose, widely-set eyes)

Face-space models and perceptual expertise: Valentine (1991): Other-race faces are encoded in Multi-Dimensional Face Space with respect to inappropriate own-race norms. Exemplar-based model Vector-based model

Bar-Haim, Saidel and Yovel (2009): Recognition of Caucasian and African faces with digitally-altered skin colour. Facial structure is more important than colour – no effect of skin colour for African faces.

Perceptual Factors in ORB - weaker holistic processing for other-race faces? Tanaka, Kiefer and Bukach (2004): no “whole over part” advantage for other-race (Asian) faces in Caucasians. Hancock and Rhodes (2008): smaller inversion effect with other-race (Asian) faces. Bukach, Cottle, Ubiwa and Miller (2012): correlation between “individuating” experience and strength of Composite Face Effect.

Perceptual Factors in ORB: Hayward, Rhodes and Schwaninger (2007): 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.

Mac. Lin and Malpass (2001): "Ambiguous race face effect". Hispanic participants who saw composites with "hispanic" hair recognised them better than hispanic participants who saw same composites but with "black" hair. Bernstein, Young and Hugenberg (2007): Image background colour affected face recognition if participants thought it signified in-group/out-group membership (same/different university, or same/different personality type).

Motivational factors in other-race effect? "Own gender" bias (Wright and Sladden 2003). "Own-age" bias (Wright and Stroud 2002; Anastasi and Rhodes 2006; Perfect and Moon 2005). Harrison and Hole (2009): Trainee teachers better than other students at recognising children's faces. Difficult to explain by perceptual expertise OR Sporer's model. Motivation? Expertise promoted by need to differentiate exemplars? Also explains Wright, Boyd and Tredoux's (2003) ORB results. Hugenberg, Miller and Claypool (2007): individuation instructions before face encoding improve other-race recognition.

Motivational factors in other-race effect? Young, Bernstein and Hugenberg (2010): Instructions to individuate faces either before encoding, after encoding or none (control): “pay close attention to what differentiates one particular face from another face of the same race, especially when that face is not of the same-race as you” Other-race effect appears to operate at encoding phase rather than retrieval.

Conclusions: Own-group biases seem to arise from combination of (a) lack of perceptual expertise with out-group faces; (b) social/motivational factors. Experience of individuating other-race faces seems most important – i. e. quality, not quantity, of contact. ORB is an important issue: Innocence Project: of 254 exonerations, 172 were Black or Hispanic.