An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults

Anastasi, Jeffrey S.; Rhodes, Matthew G.

doi:10.3758/bf03206441

Cited by 317 publications

(310 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

281

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, in our study stimuli represented a wide range of ages (18-89 years) as we predicted that young observers might not respond equally to all facial stimuli, independently of face age (Anastasi and Rhodes 2005). For this reason, we also analysed assessors' ratings made during the judgment tasks to specifically investigate age rating accuracy (since the actual age of facial stimuli was known) and variance in attractiveness ratings across the face-age span.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age and Beauty are in the Eye of the Beholder

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. How "old" and "attractive" an individual appears has increasingly become an individual concern leading to the utilisation of various cosmetic surgical procedures aimed at enhancing appearance. Using eyetracking, in the present study we aimed to investigate how individuals perceive age and attractiveness of younger and older faces and what "bottom-up" facial cues are used in this process. One hundred and twenty eight digital images of neutral faces of ages ranging from 20 to 89 years were paired and presented to subjects who judged age and attractiveness levels while having their eye movements recorded. There was an effect of face attractiveness on age-rating accuracy, with attractive faces being rated younger than their true age. Similarly, stimulus age affected attractiveness ratings, with younger faces being perceived as more attractive. Judgments of age and attractiveness were tightly linked to fixations on the eye region, along with the nose and mouth. It is thus likely that cosmetic surgical procedures targeted at the eyes, nose, and mouth may be most efficacious at enhancing one's physical appearance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age and Beauty are in the Eye of the Beholder

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given some previous reports of superior ability with own-relative to other-age faces (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005; Hills & Lewis, 2011), it seemed possible that we might observe differences in face-processing strategies for these different categories in our typically developing participants. Such own vs. other-age face differences, however, may be absent (or be present to a lesser extent) for autistic children, who less reliably demonstrate in/out-group processing biases (see Chien, Wang, Chen, Chen, & Chen, 2014; Wilson, Palermo, Burton, & Brock, 2011; Yi et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Atypical information-use in children with autism spectrum disorder during judgments of child and adult face identity

Ewing

Pellicano

King

et al. 2018

Developmental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unusual patterns of fixation behavior in individuals with autism spectrum disorder during face tasks hint at atypical processing strategies that could contribute to diminished face expertise in this group. Here, we use the Bubbles reverse correlation technique to directly examine face-processing strategies during identity judgments in children with and without autism, and typical adults. Results support a qualitative atypicality in autistic face processing. We identify clear differences not only in the specific features relied upon for face judgments, but also more generally in the extent to which they demonstrate a flexible and adaptive profile of information use.

show abstract

“…Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005;Fulton & Bartlett, 1991;Wright & Stroud, 2002), and so the younger children judged younger faces, while the older children judged older faces. Although there are significant differences in girls' and boys' faces even in the age group of the younger children (Farkas, 1987;Virgilio et al, 1998), the sexual dimorphism of younger faces differs less than that of older faces (Farkas, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because age-matched faces are easier to process and recognise (e.g. Anastasi & Rhodes, 2005;Fulton & Bartlett, 1991;Wright & Stroud, 2002), younger children viewed younger children's faces and older children viewed older children's faces.…”

Section: Judgesmentioning

confidence: 99%