Cited by 67Face Recognition and PerceptionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

A Foot in Both Worlds: Asian Americans' Perceptions of Asian, White, and Racially Ambiguous Faces

Open access
Willadsen-Jensen, Eve C., Ito, Tiffany A.·2008·Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Past research on racial perception has often focused on responses from White participants, making it difficult to determine the role of perceiver race in the perception of others. Similarly, studies examining perceptions of individuals whose racial category membership is unclear have not systematically examined responses from non-Whites. This was addressed by showing Asian participants pictures of Whites, Asians, and racially ambiguous White-Asian faces. Event-related potentials were recorded to measure early attention responses. Participants initially oriented more to outgroup White than ingroup Asian or racially ambiguous faces. Shortly after that, they showed sensitivity to the racial context in which the faces were presented, more deeply processing ingroup Asian and racially ambiguous faces when they were seeing lots of other Asians, but more deeply processing outgroup White and racially ambiguous faces when they were seeing lots of other Whites. Still later, responses were more sensitive to the objective physical properties of the faces, with racially ambiguous faces differentiated from both Whites and Asians. These results demonstrate the fluidity of racial processing, and when compared to responses obtained from White participants, show how perceiver race and racial context influences attention to racial cues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1368430207088037

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willadsen-Jensen, E. C., & Ito, T. A.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Ito, Tiffany A.
Venue
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2008-04
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
182-200
ISSN
  • 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7188
OpenAlex
W2025130642
Cited by
67
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
race perception, Asian Americans, racial context, face processing, attentional orienting, event-related potentials, racial classification, racial fluidity

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