CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-race correlations in the abilities to match unfamiliar faces

Kokje, Eesha, Bindemann, Markus, Megreya, Ahmed M.·2018·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The other-race effect in face identification has been documented widely in memory tasks, but it persists also in identity-matching tasks, in which memory contributions are minimized. Whereas this points to a perceptual locus for this effect, it remains unresolved whether matching performance with same- and other-race faces is driven by shared cognitive mechanisms. To examine this question, this study compared Arab and Caucasian observers' ability to match faces of their own race with their ability to match faces of another race using one-to-one (Experiment 1) and one-to-many (Experiment 2) identification tasks. Across both experiments, Arab and Caucasian observers demonstrated reliable other-race effects at a group level. At an individual level, substantial variation in accuracy was found, but performance with same-race and other-race faces correlated consistently and strongly. This indicates that the abilities to match same- and other-race faces share a common cognitive mechanism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.006

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Recent adult matching tasks specifically constructed to be challenging showed higher levels of accuracy: 66% for the short version of the Kent face matching test, 72% for matching with male models, and 83% for other-race faces.

    “Importantly, even recent adult matching tasks, specifically constructed to be challenging, showed higher levels of accuracy—66% for the short version of the Kent face matching test (Fysh & Bindemann, 2018), 72% for matching with male models (Dowsett & Burton, 2015), and 83% for other-race faces (Kokje, Bindemann & Megreya, 2018).”

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Bindemann, 2013, The effect of image pixelation on unfamiliar-face matching, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 707, 10.1002/acp.2970 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bindemann, 2010, Finding needles in haystacks: Identity mismatch frequency and facial identity verification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 378
  3. Bindemann, 2012, Who can recognize unfamiliar faces? Individual differences and observer consistency in person identification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 277
  4. Bindemann, 2012, Individual differences in face identification postdict eyewitness accuracy, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 96, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.001 · DOI
  5. Bindemann, 2016, Matching faces against the clock, i-Perception, 7, 10.1177/2041669516672219 · DOI
  6. Bobak, 2016, Super-recognisers in action: Evidence from face-matching and face memory tasks, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 81, 10.1002/acp.3170 · DOI
  7. Bothwell, 1989, Cross-racial identification, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19, 10.1177/0146167289151002 · DOI
  8. Brown, 2017, Cognitive control, attention, and the other-race effect in memory, PLoS One, 12, 10.1371/journal.pone.0173579 · DOI
  9. Bruce, 1999, Verification of face identities from images captured on video, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 339
  10. Burton, 2013, Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1467, 10.1080/17470218.2013.800125 · DOI
  11. Burton, 2010, The Glasgow Face Matching Test, Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.286 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Burton, 1999, Face recognition in poor-quality video: Evidence from security surveillance, Psychological Science, 10, 243, 10.1111/1467-9280.00144 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Chiroro, 1995, An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 879, 10.1080/14640749508401421 · DOI
  14. DeGutis, 2013, Individual differences in holistic processing predict the own-race advantage in recognition memory, PLoS One, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0058253 · DOI
  15. Duchaine, 2006, Prosopagnosia as an impairment to face-specific mechanisms: Elimination of the alternative hypotheses in a developmental case, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 714, 10.1080/02643290500441296 · DOI
  16. Farah, 1991, Patterns of co-occurrence among the associative agnosias: Implications for visual object representation, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 1, 10.1080/02643299108253364 · DOI
  17. Farah, 1996, Is face recognition ‘special’? Evidence from neuropsychology, Behavioural Brain Research, 76, 181, 10.1016/0166-4328(95)00198-0 · DOI
  18. Farah, 1995, Face perception and within-category discrimination in prosopagnosia, Neuropsychologia, 33, 661, 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00002-K · DOI
  19. Fletcher, 2008, Attention to internal face features in unfamiliar face matching, British Journal of Psychology, 99, 379, 10.1348/000712607X235872 · DOI
  20. Fysh, 2017, Effects of time pressure and time passage on face-matching accuracy, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 10.1098/rsos.170249 · DOI
  21. Fysh, 2017, Forensic face matching: A review, 1
  22. Harrison, 2014, Other-race effects manifest in overall performance, not qualitative processing style, Visual Cognition, 22, 843, 10.1080/13506285.2014.918912 · DOI
  23. Hayward, 2013, The other-race effect: Holistic coding differences and beyond, Visual Cognition, 21, 1224, 10.1080/13506285.2013.824530 · DOI
  24. Hayward, 2008, An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition, Cognition, 106, 1017, 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.002 · DOI
  25. Jenkins, 2011, Variability in photos of the same face, Cognition, 121, 313, 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.001 · DOI
  26. Malpass, 1969, Recognition for faces of own and other race, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330, 10.1037/h0028434 · DOI
  27. Marcon, 2010, Perceptual identification and the cross-race effect, Visual Cognition, 18, 767, 10.1080/13506280903178622 · DOI
  28. McKone, 2007, Can generic expertise explain special processing for faces?, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 8, 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.002 · DOI
  29. Megreya, 2011, The other-race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1473, 10.1080/17470218.2011.575228 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Megreya, 2009, Revisiting the processing of internal and external features of unfamiliar faces: The headscarf effect, Perception, 38, 1831, 10.1068/p6385 · DOI
  31. Megreya, 2013, Individual differences in personality and face identification, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 30, 10.1080/20445911.2012.739153 · DOI
  32. Megreya, 2006, Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957, 10.1002/acp.1243 · DOI
  33. Megreya, 2006, Unfamiliar faces are not faces: Evidence from a matching task, Memory & Cognition, 34, 865, 10.3758/BF03193433 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Megreya, 2007, Hits and false positives in face matching: A familiarity-based dissociation, Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1175, 10.3758/BF03193954 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Megreya, 2008, Matching faces to photographs: Poor performance in eyewitness memory (without the memory), Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 364
  36. Megreya, 2012, The headscarf effect: Direct evidence from the eyewitness identification paradigm, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 308, 10.1002/acp.1826 · DOI
  37. Megreya, 2013, Matching face images taken on the same day or months apart: The limitations of photo ID, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 700, 10.1002/acp.2965 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Michel, 2006, Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces, Visual Cognition, 14, 55, 10.1080/13506280500158761 · DOI
  39. Michel, 2007, Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding, Cognitive Science, 31, 911, 10.1080/03640210701530805 · DOI
  40. Michel, 2006, Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one's own race, Psychological Science, 17, 608, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01752.x · DOI
  41. Mondloch, 2010, Processes underlying the cross-race effect: An investigation of holistic, featural, and relational processing of own-race versus other-race faces, Perception, 39, 1065, 10.1068/p6608 · DOI
  42. Peirce, 2007, PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in python, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8, 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 · DOI
  43. Rhodes, 1989, Expertise and configural coding in face recognition, British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02323.x · DOI
  44. Rhodes, 2006, Expert face coding: Configural and component coding of own-race and other-race faces, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 499, 10.3758/BF03193876 · DOI
  45. Tanaka, 2004, A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study, Cognition, 93, B1, 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011 · DOI
  46. Walker, 2003, An encoding advantage for own-race versus other-race faces, Perception, 32, 1117, 10.1068/p5098 · DOI
  47. Wan, 2017, Face-blind for other-race faces: Individual differences in other-race recognition impairments, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 102, 10.1037/xge0000249 · DOI
  48. White, 2014, Redesigning photo-ID to improve unfamiliar face matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 166
  49. White, 2014, Passport officers' errors in face matching, PLoS One, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0103510 · DOI · Paper page
  50. White, 2014, Feedback training for facial image comparison, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 100, 10.3758/s13423-013-0475-3 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Wiese, 2009, Configural processing of other-race faces is delayed but not decreased, Biological Psychology, 81, 103, 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.03.002 · DOI
  52. Wilmer, 2010, Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5238, 10.1073/pnas.0913053107 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Wirth, 2017, An easy game for frauds? Effects of professional experience and time pressure on passport-matching performance, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 138
  54. Yovel, 2008, The representations of spacing and part-based information are associated for upright faces but dissociated for objects: Evidence from individual differences, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 933, 10.3758/PBR.15.5.933 · DOI
  55. Zhu, 2010, Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face perception, Current Biology, 20, 137, 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.067 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kokje, E., Bindemann, M., & Megreya, A. M.
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
185
Pages
13-21
ISSN
0001-6918
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.006
Cited by
29
References
1
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