It is well established that individuals are better at recognising faces of their own-race compared with other-races; however, there is ongoing debate regarding the perceptual mechanisms that may be involved and therefore sensitive to face-race. Here, we ask whether serial dependence of facial identity, a bias where the perception of a face’s identity is biased towards a previously presented face, shows an other-race effect. Serial dependence is associated with face recognition ability and appears to operate on high-level, face-selective representations, like other candidate mechanisms (e.g., holistic processing). We therefore expected to find an other-race effect for serial dependence for our Caucasian and Asian participants. While participants showed robust effects of serial dependence for all faces, only Caucasian participants showed stronger serial dependence for own-race faces. Intriguingly, we found that individual variation in own-race, but not other-race, serial dependence was significantly associated with face recognition abilities. Preliminary evidence also suggested that other-race contact is associated with other-race serial dependence. In conclusion, though we did not find an overall difference in serial dependence for own- versus other-race faces in both participant groups, our results highlight that this bias may be functionally different for own- versus other-race faces and sensitive to racial experience.
AlexiJ.ClearyD.DommisseK.PalermoR.KlothN.BurrD.BellJ. (2018). Past visual experiences weigh in on body size estimation. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18418-3
2.
ArmannR.JefferyL.CalderA. J.RhodesG. (2011). Race-specific norms for coding face identity and a functional role for norms. Journal of Vision, 11(13), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.13.9
3.
ByattG.RhodesG. (2004). Identification of own-race and other-race faces: Implications for the representation of race in face space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(4), 735–741. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196628
4.
ChiroroP.ValentineT. (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 48(4), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401421
5.
CicchiniG. M.AnobileG.BurrD. C. (2014). Compressive mapping of number to space reflects dynamic encoding mechanisms, not static logarithmic transform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(21), 7867–7872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402785111
6.
CicchiniG. M.MikellidouK.BurrD. C. (2018). The functional role of serial dependence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1890), Article 20181722. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1722
7.
CollovaJ. R.KlothN.CrookesK.BurtonN.ChanC. Y. H.HsiaoJ. H.RhodesG. (2017). A new other-race effect for gaze perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(11), 1857–1863. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000460
8.
CrookesK.FavelleS.HaywardW. (2013). Holistic processing for other-race faces in Chinese participants occurs for upright but not inverted faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00029
9.
DegutisJ.MercadoR. J.WilmerJ.RosenblattA. (2013). Individual differences in holistic processing predict the own-race advantage in recognition memory. PLOS ONE, 8(4), Article e58253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058253
10.
DeGutisJ.WilmerJ.MercadoR. J.CohanS. (2013). Using regression to measure holistic face processing reveals a strong link with face recognition ability. Cognition, 126(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.004
11.
De HeeringA.De LiedekerkeC.DeboniM.RossionB. (2010). The role of experience during childhood in shaping the other-race effect. Developmental Science, 13(1), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00876.x
12.
DiamondR.CareyS. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.115.2.107
13.
Dioso-VillaR. (2015). A repository of wrongful convictions in Australia: First steps toward estimating prevalence and causal contributing factors. Flinders Law Journal, 17(2), 163–202.
14.
DuchaineB.NakayamaK. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.07.001
15.
EngforsL. M.JefferyL.GignacG. E.PalermoR. (2017). Individual differences in adaptive norm-based coding and holistic coding are associated yet each contributes uniquely to unfamiliar face recognition ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/hp0000265
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
17.
FischerJ.WhitneyD. (2014). Serial dependence in visual perception. Nature Neuroscience, 17(5), 738–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3689
18.
GignacG. E. (2019). How2statsbook (Online Edition 1).
19.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
20.
GrossS. R.PossleyM.StephensK. (2017). Race and wrongful convictions in the United States. The National Registry of Exonerations, Newkirk Center for Science and Society.
21.
HancockK. J.RhodesG. (2008). Contact, configural coding and the other-race effect in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 99(Pt. 1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607x199981
22.
HaywardW. G.CrookesK.RhodesG. (2013). The other-race effect: Holistic coding differences and beyond. Visual Cognition, 21(9–10), 1224–1247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.824530
23.
HoaglinD. C.IglewiczB. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147–1149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289392
24.
HsuS. M.LeeJ. S. (2016). Relative judgment in facial identity perception as revealed by sequential effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0979-1
25.
HugenbergK.MillerJ.ClaypoolH. M. (2007). Categorization and individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit: Toward a solution to an insidious problem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.010
26.
JaquetE.RhodesG.HaywardW. G. (2007). Opposite aftereffects for Chinese and Caucasian faces are selective for social category information and not just physical face differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(11), 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701467870
27.
JaquetE.RhodesG.HaywardW. G. (2008). Race-contingent aftereffects suggest distinct perceptual norms for different race faces. Visual Cognition, 16(6), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280701350647
28.
KiyonagaA.ScimecaJ. M.BlissD. P.WhitneyD. (2017). Serial dependence across perception, attention, and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.011
29.
KonarY.BennettP. J.SekulerA. B. (2010). Holistic processing is not correlated with face-identification accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356508
30.
KramerR. S.JonesA. L.SharmaD. (2013). Sequential effects in judgements of attractiveness: The influences of face race and sex. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e82226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082226
31.
LangnerO.DotschR.BijlstraG.WigboldusD. H. J.HawkS. T.van KnippenbergA. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076
32.
LebrechtS.PierceL. J.TarrM. J.TanakaJ. W. (2009). Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit racial bias. PLOS ONE, 4(1), Article e4215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004215
33.
LeeK.AnzuresG.QuinnP. C.PascalisO.SlaterA. M. (2011). Development of face processing expertise. In CalderA. J.RhodesG.JohnsonM. H.HaxbyJ. V. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp. 753–778). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.001.0001
LibermanA.ManassiM.WhitneyD. (2018). Serial dependence promotes the stability of perceived emotional expression depending on face similarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(6), 1461–1473. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1533-8
36.
McKoneE.DawelA.RobbinsR. A.ShouY.ChenN.CrookesK. (2021). Why the other-race effect matters: Poor recognition of other-race faces impacts everyday social interactions. British Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12508
37.
McKoneE.HallA.PidcockM.PalermoR.WilkinsonR. B.RivoltaD.YovelG.DavisJ. M.O’ConnorK. B. (2011). Face ethnicity and measurement reliability affect face recognition performance in developmental prosopagnosia: Evidence from the Cambridge Face Memory Test-Australian. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 28(2), 109–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2011.616880
38.
McKoneE.StokesS.LiuJ.CohanS.FiorentiniC.PidcockM.YovelG.BroughtonM.PellegM. (2012). A robust method of measuring other-race and other-ethnicity effects: The Cambridge Face Memory Test format. PLOS ONE, 7(10), Article e47956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047956
39.
McKoneE.WanL.PidcockM.CrookesK.ReynoldsK.DawelA.KiddE.FiorentiniC. (2019). A critical period for faces: Other-race face recognition is improved by childhood but not adult social contact. Scientific Reports, 9(1), Article 12820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49202-0
40.
MegreyaA. M.WhiteD.BurtonA. M. (2011). The other-race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1473–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.575228
41.
MeissnerC. A.BrighamJ. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own—race bias in memory for faces—A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3
42.
MeissnerC. A.BrighamJ. C.ButzD. A. (2005). Memory for own-and other-race faces: A dual-process approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 545–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1097
43.
MichelC.CaldaraR.RossionB. (2006). Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Visual Cognition, 14(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500158761
44.
MichelC.RossionB.HanJ.ChungC.CaldaraR. (2006). Holistic processing is finely tuned for faces of one’s own race. Psychological Science, 17(7), 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01752.x
45.
MondlochC. J.ElmsN.MaurerD.RhodesG.HaywardW. G.TanakaJ. W.ZhouG. (2010). Processes underlying the cross-race effect: An investigation of holistic, featural, and relational processing of own-race versus other-race faces. Perception, 39(8), 1065–1085. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6608
46.
NishimuraY.TsudaH.OgawaH. (2021). Own-race advantage in visual working memory for faces reflects enhanced storage capacity and quick encoding. Japanese Psychological Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12327
47.
RhodesG.EwingL.HaywardW. G.MaurerD.MondlochC. J.TanakaJ. W. (2009). Contact and other-race effects in configural and component processing of faces. British Journal of Psychology, 100(4), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X396503
48.
RhodesG.JefferyL.TaylorL.HaywardW. G.EwingL. (2014). Individual differences in adaptive coding of face identity are linked to individual differences in face recognition ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035939
49.
RhodesG.LeopoldD. A. (2011). Adaptive norm-based coding of face identity. In CalderA. J.RhodesG.JohnsonM. H.HaxbyJ. V. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp. 263–286). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.001.0001
RichlerJ. J.FloydR. J.GauthierI. (2014). The Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test: A short and reliable measure of holistic face processing. Journal of Vision, 14(11), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.11.10
52.
RichlerJ. J.FloydR. J.GauthierI. (2015). About-face on face recognition ability and holistic processing. Journal of Vision, 15(9), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.9.15
RossionB. (2009). Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.08.002
55.
RossionB.MichelC. (2011). An experience-based holistic account of the other-race face effect. In CalderA. J.RhodesG.JohnsonM. H.HaxbyJ. V. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp. 215–244). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.001.0001
56.
SilverN. C.HittnerJ. B.MayK. (2004). Testing dependent correlations with nonoverlapping variables: A Monte Carlo simulation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.71.1.53-70
57.
SinghB.MellingerC.EarlsH. A.TranJ.BardsleyB.CorrellJ. (2022). Does cross-race contact improve cross-race face perception? A meta-analysis of the cross-race deficit and contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(6), 865–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211024463
58.
SporerS. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.36
59.
TanakaJ. W.HeptonstallB.HagenS. (2013). Perceptual expertise and the plasticity of other-race face recognition. Visual Cognition, 21(9–10), 1183–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.826315
60.
TanakaJ. W.KieferM.BukachC. M. (2004). A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Cognition, 93(1), B1–B9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011
61.
TaubertJ.AlaisD. (2016). Serial dependence in face attractiveness judgements tolerates rotations around the yaw axis but not the roll axis. Visual Cognition, 24(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2016.1196803
62.
TaubertJ.AlaisD.BurrD. (2016). Different coding strategies for the perception of stable and changeable facial attributes. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 32239. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32239
63.
TaubertJ.Van der BurgE.AlaisD. (2016). Love at second sight: Sequential dependence of facial attractiveness in an on-line dating paradigm. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 22740. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22740
64.
ThorupB.CrookesK.ChangP. P. W.BurtonN.PondS.LiT. K.HsiaoJ.RhodesG. (2018). Perceptual experience shapes our ability to categorize faces by national origin: A new other-race effect. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12289
65.
TurbettK.JefferyL.BellJ.BurtonJ.PalermoR. (2022). Autistic traits are associated with less precise perceptual integration of face identity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, 2168–2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05111-8
66.
TurbettK.PalermoR.BellJ.BurtonJ.JefferyL. (2019). Individual differences in serial dependence of facial identity are associated with face recognition abilities. Scientific Reports, 9(1), Article 18020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53282-3
67.
TurbettK.PalermoR.BellJ.Hanran-SmithD. A.JefferyL. (2021). Serial dependence of facial identity reflects high-level face coding. Vision Research, 182, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2021.01.004
68.
ValentineT. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 43(2), 161–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400966
69.
WalkerP. M.HewstoneM. (2006). A perceptual discrimination investigation of the own-race effect and intergroup experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1191
70.
WalkerP. M.TanakaJ. W. (2003). An encoding advantage for own-race versus other-race faces. Perception, 32(9), 1117–1125. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5098
71.
WanL.CrookesK.ReynoldsK. J.IronsJ. L.McKoneE. (2015). A cultural setting where the other-race effect on face recognition has no social–motivational component and derives entirely from lifetime perceptual experience. Cognition, 144, 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.011
72.
WangR.LiJ.FangH.TianM.LiuJ. (2012). Individual differences in holistic processing predict face recognition ability. Psychological Science, 23(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420575
73.
XiaY.LeibA. Y.WhitneyD. (2016). Serial dependence in the perception of attractiveness. Journal of Vision, 16(15), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.15.28
74.
YinR. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027474
75.
ZhaoM.HaywardW. G.BülthoffI. (2014). Holistic processing, contact, and the other-race effect in face recognition. Vision Research, 105, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.09.006
76.
ZhouX.MondlochC. J.EmrichS. M. (2018). Encoding differences affect the number and precision of own-race versus other-race faces stored in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1467-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
