CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: Evidence from matching tasks

Megreya, Ahmed M., Bindemann, Markus, Havard, Catriona·2011·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on sex differences in face recognition has reported mixed results, on balance suggesting an advantage for female observers. However, it is not clear whether this advantage is specific to face processing or reflects a more general superiority effect in episodic memory. The current study therefore examined sex differences with a face-matching task that eliminates memory demands. Across two experiments, female but not male observers showed an own-sex advantage on match trials, in which two pictures have to be identified as the same person. This advantage was present for whole faces and when only the internal or external facial features were shown. Female observers were also more accurate in these three conditions on mismatch encounters, in which two photographs have to be identified as different people, but this reflects a more general effect that is present for male and female faces. These findings converge with claims of a female advantage in face recognition and demonstrate that this effect persists when memory demands are eliminated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women, but not men, demonstrate an own-sex advantage on match trials, and women perform better than men on mismatch trials depicting either sex of face.

    “Previous research has shown that women, but not men, demonstrate an own-sex advantage on match trials, and it also seems that women perform better than men on mismatch trials depicting either sex of face (Megreya, Bindemann & Havard, 2011).”

    From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Megreya, Bindemann & Havard, 2011

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Anastasi, 2005, An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1043, 10.3758/BF03206441 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bengner, 2006, Sex differences in face recognition memory in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, patients with generalized epilepsy, and healthy controls, Epilepsy & Behavior, 9, 593, 10.1016/j.yebeh.2006.08.021 · DOI
  3. Bindemann, 2010, Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378
  4. Broverman, 1981, Changes to cognitive task performance across the menstrual cycle, Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 95, 646, 10.1037/h0077796 · DOI
  5. Bruce, 1994, What's distinctive about a distinctive face?, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 119, 10.1080/14640749408401146 · DOI
  6. Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339
  7. Bruce, 2001, Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 207
  8. Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cross, 1971, Sex, race, age and beauty as factors in recognition of faces, Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 393, 10.3758/BF03210319 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Darling, 2009, Some witnesses are better than others, Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 369, 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.010 · DOI
  11. Dawson, 1972, Effects of sex hormones on cognitive style in rats and men, Behavior Genetics, 2, 21, 10.1007/BF01066732 · DOI
  12. Ellis, 1973, The effects of age and sex upon adolescents’ recognition of faces, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 123, 173, 10.1080/00221325.1973.10533202 · DOI
  13. Ellis, 1979, Identification of familiar and unfamiliar faces from internal and external features: Some implications for theories of face recognition, Perception, 8, 431, 10.1068/p080431 · DOI
  14. Harrison, 2009, Evidence for a contact-based explanation of the own-age bias in face recognition, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 264, 10.3758/PBR.16.2.264 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hartshorne, 2006, Why girls say ‘holded’ more than boys, Developmental Science, 9, 21, 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00459.x · DOI
  16. Harwell, 1992, Summarizing Monte Carlo results in methodological research: The one- and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases, Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 17, 315, 10.3102/10769986017004315 · DOI
  17. Henderson, 2001, Matching the faces of robbers captured on video, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 445, 10.1002/acp.718 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Herlitz, 1997, Sex differences in episodic memory, Memory & Cognition, 25, 801, 10.3758/BF03211324 · DOI
  19. Herlitz, 2009, Sex differences in episodic memory, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 52, 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00547.x · DOI
  20. Lewin, 2002, Sex differences in face recognition—Women's faces make the difference, Brain & Cognition, 50, 121, 10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00016-7 · DOI
  21. Lewis, 1997, Familiarity, target set, and false positives in face recognition, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 437, 10.1080/713752567 · DOI
  22. Maitland, 2004, Selective sex differences in declarative memory, Memory & Cognition, 32, 1160, 10.3758/BF03196889 · DOI · Paper page
  23. McBain, 2009, Females excel at basic face perception, Acta Psychologica, 130, 168, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.12.005 · DOI
  24. McKelvie, 1981, Sex differences in memory for faces, The Journal of Psychology, 107, 109, 10.1080/00223980.1981.9915211 · DOI
  25. Megreya, 2009, Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect, Perception, 38, 1831, 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
  26. Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Memory & Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity based dissociation, Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Megreya, 2008, Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364
  29. O'Donnell, 2001, Familiarisation with faces selectively enhances sensitivity to changes made to the eyes, Perception, 30, 755, 10.1068/p3027 · DOI
  30. Rehnman, 2006, Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex and own-ethnicity bias, Memory, 14, 289, 10.1080/09658210500233581 · DOI
  31. Rehnman, 2007, Women remember more faces than men do, Acta Psychologica, 124, 344, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.04.004 · DOI
  32. Russell, 2009, Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 252, 10.3758/PBR.16.2.252 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Shapiro, 1986, Meta-analysis of facial identification studies, Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139, 10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Shaw, 1999, Weapon focus and gender differences in eyewitness accuracy: Arousal versus salience, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2328, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00113.x · DOI
  35. Sinha, 1996, I think I know that face, Nature, 384, 404, 10.1038/384404a0 · DOI
  36. Ullman, 2004, Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model, Cognition, 92, 231, 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Ullman, 2002, Sex differences in the neurocognition of language, Brain & Language, 83, 141
  38. Vokey, 1988, Typicality, familiarity and the recognition of male and female faces, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 489, 10.1037/h0084202 · DOI
  39. Vokey, 1992, Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces, Memory & Cognition, 20, 291, 10.3758/BF03199666 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Wright, 2003, An own sex bias and the importance of hair in face recognition, Acta Psychologica, 114, 101, 10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00052-0 · DOI
  41. Yonker, 2003, Sex differences in episodic memory: Minimal influence of estradiol, Brain & Cognition, 52, 231, 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00074-5 · DOI
  42. Young, 1985, Matching familiar and unfamiliar faces on internal and external features, Perception, 14, 737, 10.1068/p140737 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Megreya, A. M., Bindemann, M., & Havard, C.
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
137
Issue
1
Pages
83-89
ISSN
0001-6918
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.003
Cited by
62
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review