Cited by 346

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

Rhodes, Matthew G., Anastasi, Jeffrey S.·2012·Psychological Bulletin

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

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025750

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • 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).”
  • 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)”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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