Abstract
ABSTRACTLike most own-group biases in face recognition, the own-age bias (OAB) is thought to be based either on perceptual expertise or socio-cognitive motivational mechanisms [Wolff, N., Kemter, K., Schweinberger, S. R., & Wiese, H. (2013). What drives social in-group biases in face recognition memory? ERP evidence from the own-gender bias. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nst024]. The present study employed a recognition paradigm with eye-tracking in order to assess whether participants actively viewed faces of their own-age differently to that of other-age faces. The results indicated a significant OAB (superior recognition for own-age relative to other-age faces), provided that they were upright, indicative of expertise being employed for the recognition of own-age faces. However, the eye-tracking results indicate that viewing other-age faces was qualitatively different to the viewing of own-age faces, with more nose fixations for other-age faces. These results are interpreted as supporting the socio-cognitive model of the OAB.
Highlights
The perceptual expertise account of the own-age bias (OAB) suggests that due to extensive experience with faces of our own age, participants utilise expert face processing skills for own-age faces and inexpert processing for other-age faces (e.g. Macchi Cassia, Picozzi, Kuefner, & Casati, 2009)
The results indicated a significant OAB, provided that they were upright, indicative of expertise being employed for the recognition of own-age faces
Bonferroni-corrected simple effects revealed that own-age upright faces were recognised more accurately than other-age upright faces, t(42) = 3.21, p = .006, Cohen’s d = 0.66; there was no difference between the recognition of inverted own- and other-age faces, t(42) = 0.06, p = .953, Cohen’s d = 0.01
Summary
Participants were: 43 (19 female) 6- to 11-year-old ethnically White children (mean age: 8 years 7 months) recruited from a sample who returned consent forms to their school. Two photographs of 44 children were collected by one of the authors (SFLW) These were all taken with the same camera in front of the same white background, with light from above and to the front. Five AOIs (similar to Goldinger et al, 2009) were mapped out on the stimuli individually These were: forehead and hair, eyes, nose, mouth, and chin and cheeks. These areas were not visible to participants. If the eyes left the region, but returned within 100 ms, it was considered to be the same gaze These settings were based on the defaults for the Tobii eye-tracker
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
