Literature DB >> 26391033

Postencoding cognitive processes in the cross-race effect: Categorization and individuation during face recognition.

Michael R Ho1, Kathy Pezdek2.   

Abstract

The cross-race effect (CRE) describes the finding that same-race faces are recognized more accurately than cross-race faces. According to social-cognitive theories of the CRE, processes of categorization and individuation at encoding account for differential recognition of same- and cross-race faces. Recent face memory research has suggested that similar but distinct categorization and individuation processes also occur postencoding, at recognition. Using a divided-attention paradigm, in Experiments 1A and 1B we tested and confirmed the hypothesis that distinct postencoding categorization and individuation processes occur during the recognition of same- and cross-race faces. Specifically, postencoding configural divided-attention tasks impaired recognition accuracy more for same-race than for cross-race faces; on the other hand, for White (but not Black) participants, postencoding featural divided-attention tasks impaired recognition accuracy more for cross-race than for same-race faces. A social categorization paradigm used in Experiments 2A and 2B tested the hypothesis that the postencoding in-group or out-group social orientation to faces affects categorization and individuation processes during the recognition of same-race and cross-race faces. Postencoding out-group orientation to faces resulted in categorization for White but not for Black participants. This was evidenced by White participants' impaired recognition accuracy for same-race but not for cross-race out-group faces. Postencoding in-group orientation to faces had no effect on recognition accuracy for either same-race or cross-race faces. The results of Experiments 2A and 2B suggest that this social orientation facilitates White but not Black participants' individuation and categorization processes at recognition. Models of recognition memory for same-race and cross-race faces need to account for processing differences that occur at both encoding and recognition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cross-race effect; Eyewitness memory; Face recognition memory; Own-race bias

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26391033     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0945-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  10 in total

1.  Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding.

Authors:  M A Fernandes; M Moscovitch
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-06

2.  Race as a visual feature: using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit.

Authors:  D T Levin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-12

3.  The many faces of configural processing.

Authors:  Daphne Maurer; Richard Le Grand; Catherine J. Mondloch
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  The categorization-individuation model: an integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit.

Authors:  Kurt Hugenberg; Steven G Young; Michael J Bernstein; Donald F Sacco
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Albert-Georg Lang; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-05

6.  The cross-category effect: mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition.

Authors:  Michael J Bernstein; Steven G Young; Kurt Hugenberg
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-08

7.  Interfering with memory for faces: The cost of doing two things at once.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Wammes; Myra A Fernandes
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2015-01-26

8.  Recognition for faces of own and other race.

Authors:  R S Malpass; J Kravitz
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1969-12

9.  What causes the face inversion effect?

Authors:  M J Farah; J W Tanaka; H M Drain
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity.

Authors:  Joshua M Ackerman; Jenessa R Shapiro; Steven L Neuberg; Douglas T Kenrick; D Vaughn Becker; Vladas Griskevicius; Jon K Maner; Mark Schaller
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.