The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The own-age bias in face recognition: a meta-analytic and theoretical review
Abstract
A large number of studies have examined the finding that recognition memory for faces of one's own age group is often superior to memory for faces of another age group. We examined this own-age bias (OAB) in the meta-analyses reported. These data showed that hits were reliably greater for same-age relative to other-age faces (g = 0.23) and that false alarms were reliably less likely for same-age compared with other-age faces (g = -0.23). Further meta-analyses of measures of signal detection demonstrated that, although no difference in response criterion was evident (g = -0.01), discriminability was reliably better for same-age compared with other-age faces (g = 0.37). As well, children, younger adults, and older adults exhibited superior discriminability for same-age compared with other-age age faces. Thus, the OAB appears to be a robust effect that influences the accuracy of face recognition. Theoretical accounts of the OAB have generally suggested that it reflects more extensive, recent experiences with one's own age group relative to other-age groups. Additional analyses were supportive of this account as the OAB was present even for groups (e.g., older adults) that had prior experiences as members of another age group. However, the most comprehensive account of the OAB will also likely invoke mechanisms suggested by social-cognitive theories.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Viewers show an own-age bias when recognising faces, being better at recognising previously seen faces of their own age group.
“viewers show an own-age bias when recognising faces, where people are better at recognising previously seen faces of one’s own age group (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012)”
From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012
In typical perceivers, adult face memory performance may be facilitated in individuals who frequently have contact with children, such as nursery teachers.
“but may be facilitated in individuals who frequently have contact with children (e.g., nursery teachers: de Heering & Rossion, 2008; Harrison & Hole, 2009; Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012).”
From Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls (2020) · cites this paper as Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012
In typical perceivers, adult face memory performance is reduced for young children's faces.
“in typical perceivers, evidence suggests that adult face memory performance is reduced for young children’s faces (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005; Chance et al., 1986; Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012)”
From Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls (2020) · cites this paper as Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012
Citations
Cites
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Yin, R. K. (1969) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027474 · Cited by 2,624
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170 · Cited by 1,693
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Human Face as a Dynamic Tool for Social Communication
Jack, R. E., & Schyns, P. G. (2015) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052 · Cited by 405
Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes: A Meta-Review
Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654315582067 · Cited by 234
Facial age affects emotional expression decoding
Fölster, M., Hess, U., & Werheid, K. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00030 · Cited by 139
Sex differences in social cognition: the case of face processing
Proverbio, A. M. (2017) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.23817 · Cited by 110
Emotion and aging: Evidence from brain and behavior
Ebner, N. C., & Fischer, H. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00996 · Cited by 56
Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children
Kramer, R. S. S., Mulgrew, J., & Reynolds, M. G. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.5010 · Cited by 15
Enhanced Matching of Children’s Faces in “Super-Recognisers” But Not High-Contact Controls
Bate, S., Bennetts, R., Murray, E., & Portch, E. (2020) · i-Perception · doi:10.1177/2041669520944420 · Cited by 12
A test of age bias in children and adults in prospective person memory
Moore, K. N., Hanan, R. L., & Gaona, K. (2024) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.4140
Metadata
- Authors
- Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 146-174
- ISSN
- 1939-1455
- 0033-2909
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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