The Cross-Race Effect (CRE) refers to the repeated finding that individuals are better at recognizing faces belonging to members of their own racial or ethnic ingroup. While this effect has been widely studied on memory, fewer studies have explored whether judgments of learning (JOLs) are also sensitive to this pattern. In two experiments, Black and White participants made JOLs while studying high typicality same and other-race faces (Experiment 1) or a mix of high and low typicality faces (Experiment 2). We replicated the CRE on memory, as participants were better at recognizing and showed greater discriminability for same-race faces. Importantly, the CRE pattern extended to JOLs. However, this pattern was linked to participant ethnicity, as only Black participants’ JOLs were sensitive to the CRE. For White participants, mean JOLs did not differ between same and other-race targets, regardless of typicality. Responses on racial attitude measures showed that White participants displayed stronger internal motivations to appear non-prejudiced; however, correlational and mediation analyses revealed that this JOL pattern was not driven by differences in racial attitudes or motivations. Thus, while JOLs can be sensitive to the CRE, this effect varies by participant ethnicity, underscoring the influence of social experience on metacognitive judgments.
AnastasiJ. S.RhodesM. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1043–1047. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206441
2.
ArbuckleT. Y.CuddyL. L. (1969). Discrimination of item strength at time of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027455
BrighamJ. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(23), 1993–1967.
5.
CassidyB. S.SproutG. T.FreemanJ. B.KrendlA. C. (2017). Looking the part (to me): Effects of racial prototypicality on race perception vary by prejudice. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(4), 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw177
6.
CorenblumB.MeissnerC. A. (2006). Recognition of faces of ingroup and outgroup children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(3), 187–206.
7.
CutlerB. L.PenrodS. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge University Press.
8.
DodsonC. S.DobolyiD. G. (2016). Confidence and eyewitness identifications: The cross-race effect, decision time and accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3178
9.
FarmerH.HewstoneM.SpieglerO.MorseH.SaifullahA.PanX.FellB.CharlesfordJ.TerbeckS. (2020). Positive intergroup contact modulates fusiform gyrus activity to black and white faces. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 2700.
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
11.
FergusonD. P.RhodesG.LeeK.SriramN. (2001). “They all look alike to me”: Prejudice and cross-race face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 567–577.
12.
GagnéN.FranzenL. (2023). How to run behavioural experiments online: Best practice suggestions for cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Swiss Psychology Open, 3(1), Article 1.
GauthierI.SkudlarksiP.GoreJ. C.AndersonA. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 191–197.
15.
GongY.ZhaoX.MaQ.ZhouG. (2024). Social identity threat attenuates own-race bias in face recognition under the “Asian-Caucasian” context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 113, Article 104624.
16.
GoodmanL. A.KruskalW. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 732. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281536
17.
GrineA.CowardE. (2014). Raising issues of race in North Carolina criminal cases. UNC School of Government.
18.
HautusM. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd’. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 27, 46–51.
19.
HerzmannG.CurranT. (2013). Neural correlates of the in-group memory advantage on the encoding and recognition of faces. PLoS One, 8(12), Article e82797.
20.
HertzogC.DunloskyJ.RobinsonE. A.KidderD. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22–34.
21.
HerzmannG.OgleO.CurranT. (2022). More elaborate processing of own-race faces and less elaborate processing of other-race faces contribute to the other-race effect in face memory. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12581
22.
HighamP. A.HighamD. P. (2018). New improved gamma: Enhancing the accuracy of Goodman–Kruskal’s Gamma using ROC curves. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1125-5
23.
HorryR.WrightD. B. (2008). I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for other-race faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 610–614. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.3.610
24.
HourihanK. L.BenjaminA. S.LiuX. (2012). A cross-race effect in metamemory: Predictions of face recognition are more accurate for members of our own race. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.004
25.
KanwisherN.McDermottJ.ChunM. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.
26.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
27.
KoriatA.NussinsonR.AckermanR. (2014). Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1624–1637.
28.
LeeJ.PenrodS. D. (2022). Three-level meta-analysis of the other-race bias in facial identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(5), 1106–1130.
29.
LevinD. T. (2000). Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 550–574.
30.
LiJ.HeD.ZhouL.ZhaoX.ZhaoT.ZhangW.HeX. (2019). The effects of facial attractiveness and familiarity on facial expression recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2496.
31.
LockeV.MacraeC. N.EatonJ. L. (2005). Is person categorization modulated by exmplar typicality?Social Cognition, 23(5), 417-428.
32.
LoftusE. F. (2018). Eyewitness science and the legal system. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 1–10.
33.
MaD. S.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and Norming Data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5
34.
MakowskiD. (2018). The psycho package: An efficient and publishing-oriented workflow for psychological science. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(22), 470.
35.
MalpassR. S.KravitzJ. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(4), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028434
36.
MarshB. U. (2021). The cost of racial salience on face memory: How the cross-race effect is moderated by racial ambiguity and the race of the perceiver and the perceived. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.008
37.
MassonM. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.
38.
MaxwellN. P. (2025). Judgments of learning improve memory for word lists via enhanced item-specific encoding: Evidence from categorized, uncategorized, and DRM lists. Memory, 33(4), 375–389.
39.
MaxwellN. P.HuffM. J. (2021). The deceptive nature of associative word pairs: Effects of associative direction on judgments of learning. Psychological Research, 85, 1757–1775.
40.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale (pp. 91–125). Academic Press.
41.
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
42.
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
43.
MitchumA. L.KelleyC. M. (2010). Solve the problem first: Constructive solution strategies can influence the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019182
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245–258.
NelsonT. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
48.
NelsonT. O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. InBowerG. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–173). Academic Press.
49.
NguyenT. B.PezdekK.WixtedJ. T. (2017). Evidence for a confidence–accuracy relationship in memory for same- and cross-race faces. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(12), 2518–2534. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1246578
50.
PalmaT. A.VieraA.CruzF.MataA. (2024). The effect of face race on metamemory: Examining its robustness and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 50(11), 1811–1843.
51.
PaukerK.WeisbuchM.AmbadyN.SommersS. R.AdamsR. B.IvcevicZ. (2009). Not so black and white: Memory for ambiguous group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013265
52.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
RhodesM. G.AnastasiJ. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(1), 146–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025750
55.
RhodesM. G.SitzmanD. M.RowlandC. A. (2013). Monitoring and control of learning own-race and other-race faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2948
56.
RhodesM. G.TauberS. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021705
57.
RobeyA. M.DoughertyM. R.ButtaccioD. R. (2017). Making retrospective confidence judgments improves learners’ ability to decide what not to study. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1683–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617718800
58.
SchwartzB. L.MetcalfeJ. (2017). Metamemory: An update of critical findings. In BryneJ. H. (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (2nd ed., pp. 423–432). Academic Press.
59.
ShepherdJ. W.EllisH. D. (1973). The effect of attractiveness on recognition memory for faces. The American Journal of Psychology, 86(3), 627. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421948
60.
SinghB.MellingerC.EarlsH. A.TranJ.BardsleyB.CorrellJ. (2021). 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
61.
SmithS. M.StinsonV.ProsserM. A. (2004). Do they all look alike? An exploration of decision-making strategies in cross-race facial identifications. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 36(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087225
62.
SporerS. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 36–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.36
63.
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, B1–B9.
64.
TanakaJ. W.PierceL. J. (2009). The neural plasticity of other-race face recognition. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 122–131.
65.
TinglyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38.
66.
WagenmakersE. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.
67.
WalkerP. M.HewstoneM. (2006). A developmental investigation of other-race contact and the own-race face effect. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 451–463.
68.
WongH. K.StephenI. D.KeebleD. R. (2020). The own-race bias for face recognition in a multiracial society. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00208
YoungS. G.HugenbergK.BernsteinM. J.SaccoD. F. (2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the Cross-Race Effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 116–142.
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.
