Abstract
The cross-race effect – enhanced recognition of racial ingroup faces – has been justified to exist in other categories, such as arbitrary groups. This study aimed to investigate the effect of crossing racial (black/white) and arbitrary (blue/yellow) categories, in addition to the role of facial expressions in this phenomenon. 120 Caucasian students (from the UK, Macedonia, and Portugal) performed a discrimination task (judging faces as new vs. previously seen). Using a within-subjects design, reaction times and accuracy were measured. We hypothesized that (1) the arbitrary group membership of faces would moderate the cross-race effect and (2) the racial group membership of faces would moderate the usual recognition advantage for happy faces.
Highlights
The cross-race effect – enhanced recognition of racial ingroup faces – has been justified to exist in other categories, such as arbitrary groups
A meta-analysis on the CRE by Meissner and Brigham (2001) demonstrates the CRE to be widely replicated across studies and cultural settings
Perceptual learning models claim that people have differing amounts of experience in encoding SR and OR faces (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978; Wright, Boyd, & Tredoux, 1999)
Summary
The cross-race effect – enhanced recognition of racial ingroup faces – has been justified to exist in other categories, such as arbitrary groups. A meta-analysis on the CRE by Meissner and Brigham (2001) demonstrates the CRE to be widely replicated across studies and cultural settings. Social cognitive models of the CRE have gained popularity These claim that two mechanisms are responsible for ingroup biases: a superior processing style for ingroup faces and greater motivation for processing ingroup faces (Young & Hugenberg, 2010). Two different processes occur: categorization (classifying exemplars into a group along shared dimensions) and individuation (discriminating among exemplars of a category) (Hugenberg et al, 2010). The processing style applied to ingroup vs. outgroup faces may be motivationally determined because interactions with other ingroup members are deemed more significant, likely and productive than those with outgroup members (Hugenberg, Miller, & Claypool, 2007; Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008; Young & Hugenberg, 2010)
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.
