Literature DB >> 27893239

Face-blind for other-race faces: Individual differences in other-race recognition impairments.

Lulu Wan1, Kate Crookes2, Amy Dawel1, Madeleine Pidcock1, Ashleigh Hall1, Elinor McKone1.   

Abstract

We report the existence of a previously undescribed group of people, namely individuals who are so poor at recognition of other-race faces that they meet criteria for clinical-level impairment (i.e., they are "face-blind" for other-race faces). Testing 550 participants, and using the well-validated Cambridge Face Memory Test for diagnosing face blindness, results show the rate of other-race face blindness to be nontrivial, specifically 8.1% of Caucasians and Asians raised in majority own-race countries. Results also show risk factors for other-race face blindness to include: a lack of interracial contact; and being at the lower end of the normal range of general face recognition ability (i.e., even for own-race faces); but not applying less individuating effort to other-race than own-race faces. Findings provide a potential resolution of contradictory evidence concerning the importance of the other-race effect (ORE), by explaining how it is possible for the mean ORE to be modest in size (suggesting a genuine but minor problem), and simultaneously for individuals to suffer major functional consequences in the real world (e.g., eyewitness misidentification of other-race offenders leading to wrongful imprisonment). Findings imply that, in legal settings, evaluating an eyewitness's chance of having made an other-race misidentification requires information about the underlying face recognition abilities of the individual witness. Additionally, analogy with prosopagnosia (inability to recognize even own-race faces) suggests everyday social interactions with other-race people, such as those between colleagues in the workplace, will be seriously impacted by the ORE in some people. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27893239     DOI: 10.1037/xge0000249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  6 in total

1.  UNSW Face Test: A screening tool for super-recognizers.

Authors:  James D Dunn; Stephanie Summersby; Alice Towler; Josh P Davis; David White
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Use-inspired basic research on individual differences in face identification: implications for criminal investigation and security.

Authors:  Karen Lander; Vicki Bruce; Markus Bindemann
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-06-27

3.  Improving face identity perception in age-related macular degeneration via caricaturing.

Authors:  Jo Lane; Emilie M F Rohan; Faran Sabeti; Rohan W Essex; Ted Maddess; Nick Barnes; Xuming He; Rachel A Robbins; Tamara Gradden; Elinor McKone
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  An evaluation to determine if reading the mind in the eyes scores can be improved through training.

Authors:  Jacklin Hope Stonewall; Kaitlyn M Ouverson; Andrina Helgerson; Stephen B Gilbert; Michael C Dorneich
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Covariation in the recognition of own-race and other-race faces argues against the role of group bias in the other race effect.

Authors:  Ao Wang; Craig Laming; Timothy J Andrews
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Impressions of sexual unfaithfulness and their accuracy show a degree of universality.

Authors:  Clare A M Sutherland; Laura M Martin; Nadine Kloth; Leigh W Simmons; Yong Zhi Foo; Gillian Rhodes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.