Inter-Group Face Recognition Bias Was Modulated by the Group Status

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that social categorization can induce an own-group face recognition bias. However, similar and better other-group face recognition emerged recently. In this research, we aimed to examine whether competitive cues and group status accompanied by social categorization can modulate the inter-group face recognition bias. Moreover, we investigated how the group identification of individuals with different statuses affected the inter-group face recognition bias. The results indicated that an own-group face recognition bias emerged for targets with in-group labels compared to out-group labels. Moreover, when the group labels signaled competitive cues, the own-group face recognition bias was reversed. Furthermore, low-status and similar-status individuals exhibited out-group face recognition bias, but high-status individuals did not. In addition, the higher the in-group identification scores of participants from the low-status group, the stronger the out-group face recognition bias. These results suggested that competitive cues would reverse the own-group face recognition bias and the group status would play a modulating role in face recognition bias.

White DEI professionals' perception of their contribution to advancing workplace diversity, equity and inclusion: leveraging and decentering whiteness

“…Over the last ten years, much of the research about SIT and race relations has focused on bias, prejudice and stereotyping and the impact that SIT has on these cognitive functions (Ferrucci and Tandoc, 2018; Brown, 2000). Recent SIT research has attempted to explain the role of competitive category usage (Klauer et al ., 2014; Ferera et al ., 2018; Hu et al ., 2022), cross-cutting categorization (Goar, 2007) and the concept of organizational belongingness (Ombanda et al ., 2022). The latter has been used to understand perceptions of minimization from the standpoint of minorities (Siu Chow and Crawford, 2004), which has subsequently explained the need and success of employee resource groups (ERGs) (Welbourne et al.…”