Development of the other‐race effect in Malaysian‐Chinese infants

Tham, Diana Su Yun; Woo, Pei Jun; Bremner, J. Gavin

doi:10.1002/dev.21783

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Singh et al, 2017;Tree et al, 2017). Given the existing evidence that Malaysians interact with other races less when they are children (Kawangit et al, 2012;Su et al, 2018), the robustness of ORB in the multiracial population implies a relative lack of perceptual experience with other-race faces during childhood (de Heering et al, 2010;Su et al, 2018;Mckone et al, 2019; see also Sangrigoli et al, 2005). Additionally, the magnitude of ORB was modulated by the presence/absence of external features, such that other-race faces without external features were recognized poorly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In fact, there is evidence that Malaysians interact with other races less when they are children than when they are adults. The low level of interracial contact during infant and childhood in Malaysians is commonly reflected through same-race primary caregivers (Su et al, 2018) and the racially segregated educational systems in primary and secondary schools (Kawangit et al, 2012). For instance, Kawangit et al (2012) reported that the Chinese usually sent their children to Chinese schools with their syllabi adopted from Mainland China; Malays sent their children to Madrasa (religious schools), and Indians to Tamil schools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent developmental studies have demonstrated a critical period for plasticity of ORB (Su et al, 2018;Mckone et al, 2019), and such recognition bias can be reduced by contact with the faces of another race during childhood (e.g. Sangrigoli et al, 2005;de Heering et al, 2010), pointing toward the importance of early individuating experience in developing mechanisms of remembering and distinguishing other-race faces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Own-Race Bias for Face Recognition in a Multiracial Society

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The own-race bias (ORB) is a reliable phenomenon across cultural and racial groups where unfamiliar faces from other races are usually remembered more poorly than ownrace faces (Meissner and Brigham, 2001). By adopting a yes-no recognition paradigm, we found that ORB was pronounced across race groups (Malaysian-Malay, Malaysian-Chinese, Malaysian-Indian, and Western-Caucasian) when faces were presented with only internal features (Experiment 1), implying that growing up in a profoundly multiracial society does not necessarily eliminate ORB. Using a procedure identical to Experiment 1, we observed a significantly greater increment in recognition performance for otherrace faces than for own-race faces when the external features (e.g. facial contour and hairline) were presented along with the internal features (Experiment 2)-this abolished ORB. Contrary to assumptions based on the contact hypothesis, participants' self-reported amount of interracial contact on a social contact questionnaire did not significantly predict the magnitude of ORB. Overall, our findings suggest that the level of exposure to other-race faces accounts for only a small part of ORB. In addition, the present results also support the notion that different neural mechanisms may be involved in processing own-and other-race faces, with internal features of own-race faces being processed more effectively, whereas external features dominate representations of other-race faces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Own-Race Bias for Face Recognition in a Multiracial Society

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last two decades, infant face processing researchers have generated substantial data demonstrating how infants' social experience is related to their face recognition abilities. For example, infants ranging in age from 3 to 16 months show more difficulty discriminating among exemplars of men's faces than women's faces [1][2][3][4]. Similarly, race familiarity affects infant face processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Infants’ attention during familiarization might also be related to the facial expression posed by the model. Most studies examining infants’ recognition of familiar and unfamiliar face types have utilized images with neutral expressions [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 ], but most infants do not typically experience neutral faces and tend to respond negatively to such faces as in the still-face paradigm [ 27 ]. Four- to 6-month-olds look longer at smiling than neutral faces and typically learn to categorize happy emotions first, likely due to most infants’ familiarity with positive expressions [ 28 , 29 ], so infants might scan and process pleasant and neutral expression faces differently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Infants’ Temperament Affect Face Processing

Rennels¹,

Kayl²,

Kulhanek³

2020

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infants show an advantage in processing female and familiar race faces, but the effect sizes are often small, suggesting individual differences in their discrimination abilities. This research assessed whether differences in 6–10-month-olds’ temperament (surgency and orienting) predicted how they scanned individual faces varying in race and gender during familiarization and whether and how long it took them to locate the face during a visual search task. This study also examined whether infants viewing faces posing pleasant relative to neutral expressions would facilitate their discrimination of male and unfamiliar race faces. Results showed that infants’ surgency on its own or in conjunction with their orienting regularly interacted with facial characteristics to predict their scanning and location of faces. Furthermore, infants’ scanning patterns (dwell times and internal–external fixation shifts) correlated with their ability and time to locate a familiarized face. Moreover, infants who viewed faces with pleasant expressions showed better discrimination of unfamiliar race and male faces compared with infants who viewed neutral faces. Including temperament in the analyses consistently demonstrated its significance for understanding infant face processing. Findings suggest that positive interactions with other-race individuals and men might reduce processing disadvantages for those face types. Locating familiar adults in a timely manner is a crucial skill for infants to develop and these data elucidate factors influencing this ability.

show abstract

The Roots of Racial Categorization

Phillips

2021

Rev.Phil.Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I examine the origins of ordinary racial thinking. In doing so, I argue against the thesis that it is the byproduct of a unique module (e.g. a folk-biology module). Instead, I defend a pluralistic thesis according to which different forms of racial thinking are driven by distinct mechanisms, each with their own etiology. I begin with the belief that visible features are diagnostic of race. I argue that the mechanisms responsible for face recognition have an important, albeit delimited, role to play in sustaining this belief. I then argue that essentialist beliefs about race are driven by some of the mechanisms responsible for "entitativity perception": the tendency to perceive some aggregates of people as more genuine groups than others. Finally, I argue that coalitional thinking about race is driven by a distinctive form of entitativity perception. However, I suggest that more data is needed to determine the prevalence of this form of racial thinking. I conclude by discussing potential ways in which this pluralistic approach will advance our understanding of racial prejudice, racial stereotyping, and the ethics of racial categorization. Face recognition and the visual markers of raceOne belief that is central to folk thinking about race is that the members of different racial groups are distinguished by bodily features, such as skin color and facial physiognomy (see Glasgow, 2009, 69, 119;Hardimon, 2003; Hirschfeld, 1996, 155). The centrality of this belief is reflected in the fact that some individuals are seen as more typical-looking for a given racial group than others (Maddox, 2004, p. 383). For example, Black men are stereotypically thought to have "dark skin tone, broad noses, full lips, and tightly curled hair" (Maddox & Perry, 2018, p. 58).Research has also shown that when a member of a racial group is seen as highly typical for that group, they are subject to more prejudice and stereotyping than other members. Maddox calls this racial phenotypicality bias (Maddox, 2004; see also Maddox & Perry, 2018).The consensus among biologists and race scholars is that there is no non-arbitrary way to sort people according to the visible markers of race (e.g., see Zack, 2002, p. 43). Nonetheless, the belief that visible features are diagnostic of race is still widespread among the folk. Where does this belief come from? In what follows, I argue that the mechanisms responsible for face recognition have a key role to play.

show abstract

Development of the other‐race effect in Malaysian‐Chinese infants

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

The Own-Race Bias for Face Recognition in a Multiracial Society

The Own-Race Bias for Face Recognition in a Multiracial Society

Individual Differences in Infants’ Temperament Affect Face Processing

The Roots of Racial Categorization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About