People are better able to correctly identify the faces of individuals who belong to their own race. Research linking the cross-race effect in face recognition to racial attitudes has been limited to explicit measures and sequential presentation formats. Using a simultaneous lineup task, our results from two studies revealed a systematic relationship between explicit racial bias and increased false identification of Black faces. We observed inconsistent evidence to suggest that individual differences in implicit attitudes impact judgments of Black faces. Nevertheless, nonconscious activation of crime-related concepts prior to encoding facial targets impaired White perceivers’ accuracy for Black faces. Nonconscious priming of crime concepts did not affect White perceivers’ judgments of White faces. Thus, among Whites, racial bias, as a function of both individual differences and contextual cues, can increase the false identification of Black faces in simultaneous lineups. Theoretical and legal implications for face recognition and eyewitness memory are discussed.
AckermanJ. M.ShapiroJ. R.NeubergS. L.KenrickD. T.BeckerD. V.GriskeviciusV.…SchallerM. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry) from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17, 836–840.
2.
AnzuresG.KellyD. J.PascalisO.QuinnP. C.SlaterA. M.De ViviésX.LeeK. (2014). Own-and other-race face identity recognition in children: The effects of pose and feature composition. Developmental Psychology, 50, 469.
3.
ApplebyJ.VitriolJ. A.BorgidaE. (2014). Cross racial facial recognition and sequential presentation formats (Unpublished manuscript).Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN.
4.
ArcuriL.CastelliL.GaldiS.ZogmaisterC.AmadoriA.2008. Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of decided and undecided voters. Political Psychology, 29, 369–387.
5.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.
6.
BuhrmesterM. D.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
7.
ChiroroP.ValentineT. (2015). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 879–894.
8.
DuntonB. C.FazioR. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316–326.
9.
EberhardtJ. L.GoffP. A.PurdieV. J.DaviesP. G. (2004). Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876–893.
10.
FazioR. H.DuntonB. C. (1997). Categorization by race: The impact of automatic and controlled components of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 451–470.
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.
ForscherP. S.LaiC. K.AxtJ. R.EbersoleC. R.HermanM.DevineP. G.NosekB. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of change in implicit bias. Psychological Bulletin. Under revision.
13.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2011). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59–127.
14.
GawronskiB.HofmannW.WilburC. J. (2006). Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious?Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 485–499.
15.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the implicit association test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 553–561.
16.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
17.
GreenwaldA. G.SmithC. T.SriramN.Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2009). Race attitude measures predicted vote in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 241–253.
18.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.
19.
HenryP. J.SearsD. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology, 23, 253–283.
20.
HugenbergK.YoungS. G.BernsteinM. J.SaccoD. F. (2010). The categorization-individuation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117, 1168–1187.
JostJ. T.RudmanL. A.BlairI. V.CarneyD. R.DasguptaN.GlaserJ.HardinC. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69.
23.
LebrechtS.PierceL. J.TarrM. J.TanakaJ. W. (2009). Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit racial bias. PLoS ONE, 4, e4215.
24.
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, 559–574.
25.
LindsayR. C.WellsG. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.
26.
LinvilleP. W.FischerF. W.SaloveyP. (1989). Perceived distributions of characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–211.
27.
MacLinO. H.MalpassR. S. (2001). Racial categorization of faces: The ambiguous race face effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 98–118.
28.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on amazon’s mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23.
29.
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, 3–35.
30.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943–951.
31.
OswaldF. L.MitchellG.BlantonH.JaccardJ.TetlockP. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192.
32.
PalmerM. A.BrewerN. (2012). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247–255.
33.
PlatzS. J.HoschH. M. (1988). Cross-racial ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972–984.
34.
PozzuloJ. D.LemieuxJ. M.WellsE.McCuaigH. J. (2006). The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors’ verdicts and perceptions of reliability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 641–652.
35.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.FazioR. H. (1992). On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an object’s attraction of visual attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 198–211.
36.
SangrigoliS.de SchonenS. (2004). Recognition of own-race and other-race faces by three-month-old infants. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1219–1227.
37.
ShriverE. R.HugenbergK. (2010). Power, individuation, and the cross-race recognition deficit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 767–774.
38.
SmithE. R.FazioR. H.CejkaM. A. (1996). Accessible attitudes influence categorization of multiply categorizable objects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 888–898.
39.
SporerS. L. (2001a). The cross-race effect: Beyond recognition of faces in the laboratory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 170–200.
40.
SporerS. L. (2001b). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 36–97.
41.
SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E.WellsG. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.
42.
TurnerJ. C.BrownR. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201–234). London, England: Academic Press.
43.
ValentineT. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 161–204.
44.
WellsG. L.BradfieldA. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses’ recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be moderated?Psychological Science, 10, 138–144.
45.
WellsG. L.MemonA.PenrodS. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75.
46.
WilsonJ. P.HugenbergK. (2010). When under threat, we all look the same: Distinctiveness threat induces ingroup homogeneity in face memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1004–1010.
47.
WrightD. B.McDaidA. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84.
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.
