Theoretical approaches Cross-race effect

1 theoretical approaches

1.1 history
1.2 ingroup advantage
1.3 cross-race effect , emotion recognition
1.4 social cognition

1.4.1 cognitive disregard
1.4.2 depth of processing hypothesis
1.4.3 challenges social cognition models


1.5 perceptual expertise hypothesis

1.5.1 challenges perceptual expertise models


1.6 effects of social cognition
1.7 integration of cross-race effect theories

1.7.1 prototypes


1.8 race-feature theory
1.9 contact hypothesis theory

theoretical approaches

how spot jap (1942), produced united states army, attempts describe visual differences between japanese , chinese, distinction difficult soldiers. click larger image.


history

the first research on cross-race effect published in 1914. stated humans tend perceive people of other races alike. else being equal, individuals of given race distinguishable each other in proportion familiarity or contact race whole. thus, uninitiated caucasian, east asian people alike, while east asian people, caucasian people alike. not hold true when people of different races familiarize races different own.

ingroup advantage

cross-race effect has strong connection ingroup advantage phenomenon. ingroup advantage, people evaluate , judge members of own self-defined group being better , fairer members of other groups (outgroup disadvantage). social psychologists have demonstrated in last 30 years smallest aspect of differentiation, preference flavor of ice cream or style of music, can trigger ingroup advantage. if group-building factor person s race, cross-race effect appears. favoritism of ingroup members results decreased inborn motivation read face of person of group or culture. hess, senecal & kirouac showed in 1996 motivation decode emotional facial expression instantly decreased when experimental subject realized face belonged person of race.

cross-race effect , emotion recognition

a meta-analysis of several studies emotion recognition in facial expressions revealed people recognize , interpret emotional facial expression of person of own race faster , better of person of race. these findings apply races in same way. studies show other races, compared 1 s own race, have differently shaped faces , different details within facial expression, making difficult members of other races decode emotional expressions. however, studies have shown mood of observer not affect cross-race effect.

social cognition

research has shown people tend think more categorically outgroup members , more individually ingroup members. example, outgroup members may associate specific facial features particular race or ethnicity, , not notice subtle variations in skin tone, eye color, or hair texture ingroup members recognize. categorical thinking happens more consistently outgroup participants while individuation exact opposite. these different views between outgroup , ingroup members have been known bias conceptual cognitive processes , show cross-race effect has less race different levels of cognitive processing occur ingroup , outgroup members.

cognitive disregard

another set of cognitive theories related cross-race effect focuses on how social categorizaion , individuation biases face memory. researchers believe inability ingroup members recognize differences in features of outgroup members can explained through cognitive disregard. find likelihood of falsely identifying member of out-group stems automatic encoding of face without processing unique features. thus, when presented out-group member has similar face 1 encoded, in-group member automatically, incorrectly determines face has been seen before. these studies conclude diminishing cross race effect requires individuals process ethnically-differing faces goal of encoding individuation.

depth of processing hypothesis

depth of processing influences presence of cross race effect. same-race faces more correctly , discerned because deep processing, other-race faces are. hypothesis, however, controversial because of inability replicated within studies.

challenges social cognition models

there 2 challenges social cognition models (a) mixed evidence dealing race accessibility, face perception, , memory , (b) effects of development , training on cross-race effect. regarding mixed evidence, popular belief more exposed people of different races less affected cross-race effect. there have been studies support theory, other research has shown mixed results. example, results of studies done accessibility, in how easy or not person around people of difference races, different races manipulated, showed not affect face memory. second regarding development , training effects, because shows improvement dealing cross-race effect due exposure cross race training or experience, not direct prediction of social cognitive model. social cognitive model start explaining such effects there have evidence ingroup , outgroup distinctions occur developmentally @ exact time cross-race effect emerges in child. there evidence showing when cross-race effect first emerges, there little research directly testing onset of ingroup , outgroup recognition biases in young children.

perceptual expertise hypothesis

the perceptual expertise theory suggest if identify perceptual learning mechanisms control perceptual expertise face , non-face stimuli understand cross-race effect. there many models deal perceptual expertise, of these models share idea human s face processing ability not generalize equally faces. hence, these theories propose racial segregation results in people developing better expertise in distinguishing between faces of our own race or of different race. research around these theories suggests more child exposed cross-race face processing lower cross-race effect. however, if child not exposed lot of cross-race face processing cross-race effect can increase. furthermore, there evidence long term , short term exposure cross-race face processing can improve recognition.

challenges perceptual expertise models

challenges perceptual expertise models mixed evidence interracial contact hypothesis, , varied results of training effect. mixed evidence shows although there support theory more interracial contact person has better person @ cross-race recognition, evidence gathered not come same conclusion. mixture of results causes relationship between cross-race exposure , recognition ability weaken. however, there may third factor contributes these inconsistent findings. there evidence quality of cross-race contact has effect on relationship. example, research supports position able recognize cross-race faces 1 has attentive , effortful when encoding face memory. training individuals has been shown reduce cross race effect in people, quick onset coupled quick off set of ability. although, short term training can translate long term training, not same having real life experience cross-race effect. finally, there other processes besides perceptual expertise can influence cross-race recognition.

effects of social cognition

another reason cross-race-effect may occur perceptions affected motivations, expectations, , social cognition. overall, creation of norms has shaped , biased simple perceptions such line lengths. in terms of perception of faces, studies have shown racially ambiguous faces have been identified 1 race or based on hairstyle identified having more features of racial category represented hairstyle. similarly, faces of ambiguous equal shade interpreted darker or lighter when accompanied label of either black or white , respectively.

integration of cross-race effect theories
prototypes

individuals develop , store face prototype each time encounter face unique ones or has encountered (usually ones differ in features compared or ethnic group). studies, researchers have concluded when individual belonging ethnicity differs or own, or forms prototype , reserves future use, if , when necessary. prototype view raises concern, however, because individuals storing these unique faces may ignore fact has features may special or makeup, , may not apply belonging particular ethnic group or race; thus, results in more false alarms during eyewitness testimony or identifying perpetrators in lineups.

race-feature theory

in 1996 study, researchers noticed when looking @ ethnicity, in-group faces processed without acknowledgement of ethnic-specific details , features. people code faces deviate norm of ethnic group through absence or presence of distinctive ethnic features.

this supported finding classification of other-race faces tends faster same-race faces. suggests race seems more perceptually salient feature other more discerning facial features when face belongs different race. eye tracking studies found tentative evidence such hypothesis demonstrating people @ different facial features in same- versus other-race faces. general trend observed people fixate eyes of face higher probability if belongs same ethnic group observer her- or himself. however, other studies found pronounced differences between asian , european observers′ looking behavior , these differences stable both own- , other-race faces. explained stemming more clustered density-gradient other-race faces same race faces. reasoning causes more nodes become activated in reaction other-race face, resulting in faster classification, less discriminability in terms of memory. however, these exemplar-based theories cannot explain why faces ambiguous in terms of social category information can influence recognition.

contact hypothesis theory

one method researchers have suggested mollify prevelence of cross race effect through application of contact hypothesis. accurate recognition , identification of other-race faces, researchers have deduced, stems difference in learning experiences relate individual ethnic groups. cross race effect can reduced continual exposure ethnic groups differ 1 s own; more positive interactions occur between 2 ethnic groups, more heterogeneous ethnicities seem be. type of contact experienced between 2 ethnic groups plays major role in hypothesis effectiveness; more intimate contact, higher chances become of accurately recognizing member of different ethnicity 1 s own