CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,788Face Recognition and PerceptionEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFace recognition and analysis

The Chicago face database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data

Open access
Ma, Debbie S., Correll, Joshua, Wittenbrink, Bernd·2015·Behavior Research Methods
DOI 10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Researchers studying a range of psychological phenomena (e.g., theory of mind, emotion, stereotyping and prejudice, interpersonal attraction, etc.) sometimes employ photographs of people as stimuli. In this paper, we introduce the Chicago Face Database, a free resource consisting of 158 high-resolution, standardized photographs of Black and White males and females between the ages of 18 and 40 years and extensive data about these targets. In Study 1, we report pre-testing of these faces, which includes both subjective norming data and objective physical measurements of the images included in the database. In Study 2 we surveyed psychology researchers to assess the suitability of these targets for research purposes and explored factors that were associated with researchers' judgments of suitability. Instructions are outlined for those interested in obtaining access to the stimulus set and accompanying ratings and measures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The choice of using intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability and happiness as dependent attributes for the halo effect was driven by existing literature.

    “The choice of using intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability and happiness as dependent attributes for the halo effect was driven by existing literature on this cognitive bias, such as [4,6,8,9,22,53,60–63].”

    From What is beautiful is still good: the attractiveness halo effect in the era of beauty filters (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Contributions of the CFD section lists trustworthiness and happy expression among its face ratings, and the Results relate both ratings to experts’ judgments of face suitability (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not establish intelligence or sociability as attributes for a halo-effect study, or explain the citing authors’ choice of dependent attributes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V., … Schaller, M. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): From out-group homogeneity to out-group hetereogeneity. Psychological Science, 17(10), 836-840.
  2. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., de Fruyt, F., de Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., … Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119.
  3. Belhumeur, P. N., Hespanha, J. P., & Kriegman, D. J. (1997). Eigenfaces vs. fisherfaces: Recognition using class specific linear projection. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 19, 711-720.
  4. Berg, T. L., Berg, A. C., Edwards, J., Maire, M., White, R., Teh, Y. W., … Forsyth, D. A. (2004). Names and faces in the news. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2, 848- 854.
  5. Blair, I. V., & Judd, C. M. (2010). Afrocentric facial features and stereotyping. In R. B. Adams Jr., N. Ambady, K. Nakayama, & S. Shimojo (Eds.), The science of social vision. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Fallman, J. L. (2004). The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 763-778.
  7. Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77(3), 305-327.
  8. Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2651-2656.
  9. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1314.
  10. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  11. Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1998). Measurement. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 180-232). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  12. Judd, C. M., Westerfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social pyshcology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69.
  13. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1996). A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 138.
  14. Kumar, N., Belhumeur, P. N., & Nayar, S. K. (2008). FaceTracer: A search engine for large collections of images with faces. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 340-353.
  15. Livingston, R. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). What are we really priming?: Cue-based versus category-based processing of facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 5-18.
  16. Ma, D. S., & Correll, J. (2011). Target prototypicality moderates racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 391-396.
  17. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435-442.
  18. Morris, J. S., Friston, K. J., Büchel, C., Frith, C. D., Young, A. W., Calder, A. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1998). A neuromodulatory role for the human amygdala in processing emotional facial expressions. Brain, 121, 47-57.
  19. Morton, J., & Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological Review, 98, 164.
  20. Pauker, K., & Ambady, N. (2009). Multiracial faces: How categorization affects memory at the boundaries of race. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 69-86.
  21. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 659-669.
  22. Sadler, M. S., Correll, J., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2012). The world is not black and white: Racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 286-313.
  23. Sato, W., & Yoshikawa, S. (2013). Recognition memory for faces and scenes. The Journal of General Psychology, 140, 1-15.
  24. Sergent, J., Ohta, S., & MacDonald, B. (1992). Functional neu- roanatomy of face and object processing A positron emission tomography study. Brain, 115(1), 15-36.
  25. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
  26. Zebrowitz, L.A. (1997) Reading faces: Window to the soul? Westview Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B.
Affiliations
  • California State University, Northridge (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Ma, Debbie S.
ORCID
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-01-13
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
1122-1135
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
DOI
10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
OpenAlex
W1964981411
Cited by
1,788
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 182 · 2025: 238 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 209 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 196 · 2019: 134 · 2018: 100 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
36.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • California State University ScholarWorks (system-wide DSpace) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1226143)
  • University of Chicago
  • Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
Keywords
face images, stimulus set, facial attractiveness, gender, age, theory of mind, emotions, interpersonal attraction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Chicago, Emotions, Face, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Photic Stimulation, Prejudice, Reference Values, Stereotyping, Databases, Factual, Young Adult

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