The Cross-Race Effect: Resistant to Instructions

Abstract

The cross-race effect (CRE) is the tendency for eyewitnesses to be better at recognizing members of their own race/ethnicity than members of other races/ethnicities. It manifests in terms of both better discrimination (i.e., telling apart previously seen from new targets) and a more conservative response criterion for own-race than for other-race faces. The CRE is quite robust and generally resistant to change. Two studies examined the effectiveness of reducing the CRE with special instructions given prior to retrieval. Although instructions at retrieval did change participants’ response criterion—making them less likely to identify test faces as previously seen—they did not shift their response criterion selectively for other-race faces. The findings indirectly support the importance of encoding processes in producing the CRE.

Perceptual Processes in the Cross-Race Effect: Evidence From Eyetracking

“…Although the feature instructions resulted in a comparable decrease in false alarms for White and African American faces-suggesting an overall criterion shift, rather than a selective shift depending on face racethis finding is consistent with the more general principle that instructions about the CRE given prior to encoding can moderate performance (Hugenberg et al, 2007;Young et al, 2010), at least under some conditions (for failures of instructions to moderate the CRE, see Bornstein et al, 2013;Tullis et al, 2014). Similar effects have been obtained by directing observers to more diagnostic features (Hills & Pake, 2013) or constraining the amount of a face that they can view (Caldara et al, 2010), which suggests that efforts to reduce or eliminate the CRE through training have the potential to be successful (Brigham, 2008).…”

“…Recent research has demonstrated considerable support for encoding-based factors in the CRE (e.g., Bornstein, Laub, Meissner, & Susa, 2013;Evans, Marcon, & Meissner, 2009;Hancock & Rhodes, 2008;Meissner, Brigham, & Butz, 2005). Rather than a simple difference in time spent encoding own-race versus other-race faces, they appear to be processed differently (Tullis, Benjamin, & Liu, 2014).…”

Towards a synthetic model of own group biases in face memory

“…However, it is quite plausible that the effects of such manipulations may be limited or eliminated in circumstances where the encoding efficiency of cross-race faces is experimentally limited. For example, making stimuli harder to recognize (e.g., cropping stimuli; using different stimuli at encoding and recognition, Bornstein, Laub, Meissner, & Susa, 2013), using stimuli that are perceptually similar (naturally occurring or via morphing), or otherwise eliminating individuating characteristics that are easier for inexpert perceivers to extract from targets (e.g., using Greebles; Gauthier & Tarr, 1997) could potentially attenuate or eliminate motivational effects. Similarly, truncated exposure times may prevent the deployment of motivated resources (e.g., or efficient modes of face processing (e.g., Palermo & Rhodes, 2002), further limiting the ability of motivation to influence encoding.…”

Age and lineup type differences in the own-race bias

“…The 14 initial presentation photographs depicted young men and women in their early 20s wearing their own clothes and smiling; each photograph was in color, homogeneous in lighting and size, and included their head and shoulder (Bornstein, Laub, Meissner, & Susa, 2013;Doob & Kirshenbaum, 1973;Evans et al, 2009). The ratio of male to female photographs was constant across race.…”

“…The MEI is a 23-item scale that measures individuals' past and present interactions with other racial/ ethnic groups, which has been used in prior ORB research (e.g., Bornstein et al, 2013) and is described as a measure of affiliation with other races, as opposed to preferences for other races (Zane & Mak, 2003). Higher scores on the MEI indicate more interactions with people of other groups.…”