No Race Effect (ORE) in the Automatic Orienting toward Baby Faces: When Ethnic Group does not matter

Abstract

It was shown that own (vs. other) race baby faces capture attention automatically whereas other race babies do not (Hodsoll et al., 2010). Other literature provided evidence of an innate preferential response to baby faces (baby schema effect). We investigated whether infant (vs. adult) faces automatically attracted attention (exogenous orienting), and whether this was modulated by ethnicity. 30 students took part in this study. Their task was to decide whether a lateralized target was upright or inverted. Targets were preceded by 400 baby or adult (Caucasian vs. non-Caucasian) faces shortly flashed in the same location, thus acting as spatial cues (valid/invalid). Results showed no effect of the ethnic group but of face age in speeding up RTs to targets preceded by baby faces. Significant costs for invalid locations cued by baby faces were also found (difficulty in disengagement). The data indicate how visual attention is literally captured by baby schema, independent of baby race.

Preferential attention to same‐and other‐ethnicity infant faces does not fully overcome the other‐race effect

“…As a result, any evolutionary benefits resulting from increased affective and attentional orienting toward infant faces should transcend ethnicity. In keeping with this hypothesis and the general framework of infants being evolutionarily salient (Glocker et al, ) are recent suggestions that there is no other‐race effect (ORE) for infant faces (Proverbio et al, ,). Broadly defined, the ORE (also referred to as the own‐race bias, cross‐race effect, and own‐ethnicity bias) consists of faster and better performance for categorization tasks for one's own ethnic group than a different ethnic group (Walker & Tanaka, ), and preferential recognition memory for same‐ethnicity faces compared with other‐ethnicity faces (Meissner & Brigham, ).…”

“…Ethologist Konrad Lorenz proposed that certain infant characteristics elicit an innate caretaking behavior and affective orienting he referred to as Kindchenschema (Lorenz, ). In support of this hypothesis, research demonstrates that the classic morphological characteristics of baby schema, which include a large head, bulbous forehead, large eyes, chubby cheeks, and small chin (Bergersen, ; Enlow & Hans, ), are attentionally prioritized over adult faces and other biological stimuli (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, ; Cardenas, Harris, & Becker, ; Hodsoll, Quinn, & Hodsoll, ; Proverbio, De Gabriele, Manfredi, & Adorni, ; Thompson‐Booth et al, ,) and elicit more positive affective responses (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, ; Senese et al, ), stronger arousal responses (Esposito et al, ), stronger reward‐related responses (Glocker et al, ; Hahn & Perrett, ; Parsons, Young, Kumari, Stein, & Kringelbach, ), and even result in an increase in careful behavior and focus (Nittono, Fukushima, Yano, & Moriya, ).…”

Development of category formation for faces differing by age in 9‐ to 12‐month‐olds: An effect of experience with infant faces

“…Forthcoming lines of investigation could additionally focus on other aspects of visual perception such as face detection in complex visual arrays, contrasting categories of faces differing by age (for related work contrasting categories of faces by species, see Jakobsen, Umstead, & Simpson, 2016; Simpson, Jakobsen, Damon, Suomi, & Ferrari, in press). Such work would have theoretical significance given that infant faces have been shown to be attentionally prioritized by adults, in both humans (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, 2007; Proverbio, De Gabriele, Manfredi, & Adorni, 2011) and monkeys (Koda, Sato, & Kato, 2013). Finding such an effect in infants without experience with infant faces would support an early influence of a baby schema.…”

Development of preferences for differently aged faces of different races

“…It is important to distinguish between preference (preferring to attend to or choosing one age category over another) and recognition (processing and memory for faces encountered previously) given that findings sometimes differ depending on which construct is being assessed. Adults demonstrate a preference for infant over child and adult faces and child over adult faces (Luo, Li, & Lee, 2011), are more responsive to infantile face cues (Glocker et al, 2009; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979; Little & Fusani, 2012), and have their attention captured more by infant faces than adult faces (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, 2007; Proverbio, De Gabriele, Manfredi, & Adorni, 2011; Thompson-Booth et al, 2014). This pattern of performance may reflect a baby schema.…”