The Other-Race Effect Revisited: No Effect for Faces Varying in Race Only

  • Isabelle Bülthoff
  • Regine G. M. Armann
  • Ryo Kyung Lee
  • Heinrich H. Bülthoff
Part of the Trends in Augmentation of Human Performance book series (TAHP, volume 5)

Abstract

The other-race effect refers to the observation that we perform better in tasks involving faces of our own race compared to faces of a race we are not familiar with. This is especially interesting as from a biological perspective, the category “race” does in fact not exist (Cosmides L, Tooby J, Krurzban R, Trends Cogn Sci 7(4):173–179, 2003); visually, however, we do group the people around us into such categories. Usually, the other-race effect is investigated in memory tasks where observers have to learn and subsequently recognize faces of individuals of different races (Meissner CA, Brigham JC, Psychol Public Policy Law 7(1):3–35, 2001) but it has also been demonstrated in perceptual tasks where observers compare one face to another on a screen (Walker PM, Tanaka J, Perception 32(9):1117–1125, 2003). In all tasks (and primarily for technical reasons) the test faces differ in race and identity. To broaden our general understanding of the effect that the race of a face has on the observer, in the present study, we investigated whether an other-race effect is also observed when participants are confronted with faces that differ only in ethnicity but not in identity. To that end, using Asian and Caucasian faces and a morph algorithm (Blanz V, Vetter T, A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques – SIGGRAPH’99, pp 187–194, 1999), we manipulated each original Asian or Caucasian face to generate face “race morphs” that shared the same identity but whose race appearance was manipulated stepwise toward the other ethnicity. We presented each Asian or Caucasian face pair (original face and a race morph) to Asian (South Korea) and Caucasian (Germany) participants who had to judge which face in each pair looked “more Asian” or “more Caucasian”. In both groups, participants did not perform better for same-race pairs than for other-race pairs. These results point to the importance of identity information for the occurrence of an other-race effect.

Keywords

Human face recognition Other-race effect Race vs identity information 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Karin Bierig for her help in running this experiment. This study was supported by the Max Planck Society, by the WCU (World Class University) program and by the Brain Korea 21 PLUS Program both funded by the Ministry of Education through the National Research Foundation of Korea. Please address correspondence to I. Bülthoff (isabelle.buelthoff@tuebingen.mpg.de).

References

  1. 1.
    Moses Y, Adini Y, Ullman S (1994) Face recognition: the problem of compensating for changes in illumination direction. Lect Notes Comput Sci 800:286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cosmides L, Tooby J, Krurzban R (2003) Perceptions of race. Trends Cogn Sci 7(4):173–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jenkins R, White D, Van Montfort X, Burton AM (2011) Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition 121(3):313–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou X, Laurence S, Mondloch C (2014) They all look different to me: within-person variability affects identity perception for other-race faces more than own-race faces. J Vis 10(13): 1263, Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hugenberg K, Young SG, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF (2010) The categorization-individuation model: an integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychol Rev 117(4):1168–1187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anastasi JS, Rhodes MG (2005) An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychon Bull Rev 12(6):1043–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuefner D, Cassia VM, Picozzi M, Bricolo E (2008) Do all kids look alike ? Evidence for an other-age effect in adults. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34(4):811–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Armony JL, Sergerie K (2007) Own-sex effects in emotional memory for faces. Neurosci Lett 426(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kret ME, De Gelder B (2012) A review on sex differences in processing emotional signals. Neuropsychologia 50(7):1211–1221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Megreya AM, Bindemann M, Havard C (2011) Sex differences in unfamiliar face identification: evidence from matching tasks. Acta Psychol 137(1):83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao M, Hayward WG, Bülthoff I (2014) Face format at encoding affects the other-race effect in face memory. J Vis 14:1–13Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ekman P, Friesen WV (1976) Pictures of facial affect. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bülthoff I, Newell FN (2004) Categorical perception of sex occurs in familiar but not unfamiliar faces. Vis Cogn 11(7):823–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Armann R, Bülthoff I (2012) Male and female faces are only perceived categorically when linked to familiar identities–and when in doubt, he is a male. Vis Res 63:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levin DT (1996) Classifying faces by race: the structure of face categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 22(6):1364–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rhodes G, Ewing L, Hayward WG, Maurer D, Mondloch CJ, Tanaka J (2009) Contact and other-race effects in configural and component processing of faces. Br J Psychol 100(Pt 4):717–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldstone RL (1994) Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. J Exp Psychol Gen 123(2):178–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blanz V, Vetter T (1999) A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Los Angeles, pp 187–194Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beale JM, Keil FC (1995) Categorical effects in the perception of faces. Cognition 57(3):217–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levin DT (2000) Race as a visual feature: using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. J Exp Psychol Gen 129(4):559–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Armann R, Bülthoff I (2009) Gaze behavior in face comparison: the roles of sex, task, and symmetry. Atten Percept Psychophys 71(5):1107–1126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Toole AJ, Deffenbacher KA, Valentin D, Abdi H (1994) Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect. Mem Cogn 22(2):208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee RK, Bülthoff I, Armann R, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH (2011) The other-race effect is not ubiquitous. J Vis 11(11):626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee RK, Bülthoff I, Armann R, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH (2011) Investigating the other-race effect in different face recognition tasks. Iperception 2(4):355–355Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayward WG, Rhodes G, Schwaninger A (2008) An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition. Cognition 106(2):1017–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meissner CA, Brigham JC (2001) Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Public Policy Law 7(1):3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker PM, Tanaka J (2003) An encoding advantage for own-race versus other-race faces. Perception 32(9):1117–1125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Megreya AM, White D, Burton AM (2011) The other-race effect does not rely on memory: evidence from a matching task. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 64(8):1473–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bruce V, Young AW (1986) Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol 77(3):305–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schweinberger SR, Soukup GR (1998) Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion, and facial speech. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(6):1748–1765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baudouin J-Y, Tiberghien G (2002) Gender is a dimension of face recognition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28(2):362–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ganel T, Goshen-Gottstein Y (2002) Perceptual integrality of sex and identity of faces: further evidence for the single-route hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28(4):854–867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bruyer R, Leclere S, Quinet P (2004) Ethnic categorisation of faces is not independent of face identity. Perception 33(2):169–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Bülthoff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Regine G. M. Armann
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ryo Kyung Lee
    • 2
  • Heinrich H. Bülthoff
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Brain and Cognitive EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations