Law and Human Behavior
Cross-Race (but Not Same-Race) Face Identification Is
Impaired by Presenting Faces in a Group Rather Than
Individually
Kathy Pezdek, Matthew O'Brien, and Corey Wasson
Online First Publication, December 19, 2011. doi: 10.1037/h0093933
CITATION
Pezdek, K., O'Brien, M., & Wasson, C. (2011, December 19). Cross-Race (but Not
Same-Race) Face Identification Is Impaired by Presenting Faces in a Group Rather Than
Individually. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/h0093933
Law and Human Behavior
2011, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000 – 000
© 2011 American Psychological Association
0147-7307/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/h0093933
Cross-Race (but Not Same-Race) Face Identification Is Impaired by
Presenting Faces in a Group Rather Than Individually
Kathy Pezdek, Matthew O’Brien, and Corey Wasson
Claremont Graduate University
This study extends the research on cross-race identification by examining how group presentation of
faces influences the cross-race effect (CRE) and confirming systematic qualitative differences between
the cognitive processes involved in memory for same- and cross-race faces. White individuals viewed 16
target faces (8 White, 8 Black) presented individually or each in a 3-face group. The conditions that
impaired cross-race but not same-race face recognition memory were (a) group compared to individual
presentation of target faces (Experiment 1), and (b) presentation of target faces in homogeneous (foil
faces matched the race of the target face) rather than heterogeneous groups (foil faces did not match the
race of the target face; Experiment 2). These findings are interpreted within the context of social–
cognitive processes that operate on same- and cross-race faces, specifically, the dual-process account of
the CRE. Together, results of these two experiments suggest that the CRE is moderated by viewing
conditions that are likely to vary in real world eyewitness memory and identification situations.
Keywords: eyewitness memory, cross-race effect, own-race bias, face recognition memory
of real criminal cases, Behrman and Davey (2001) found frequent
occurrence of cross-race eyewitness situations. Further, nearly 40% of
the DNA exoneration cases reported by the Innocence Project involved cross-race identifications (see http://www.innocenceproject
.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php).
Numerous social– cognitive mechanisms have been proposed to
account for the CRE. These social– cognitive mechanisms, including levels of processing, distinctiveness effects, the configuralfeatural hypothesis, and categorization effects such as the “ingroup/out-group model” (IOM) of Sporer (2001), have been
reviewed in detail elsewhere (Meissner, Brigham, & Butz, 2005).
Meissner et al. tested the predictions of the various social–
cognitive mechanisms within the dual-process framework. Our
study does not critically test the mechanisms that account for the
CRE. However, the dual-process account of the CRE articulated
by Meissner et al. will be adopted as a framework for this study
because it involves processes that are superordinate to and thus cut
across the various social– cognitive mechanisms.
For the past 30 years, dual-process memory models have played
a major role in understanding recognition memory. (See Yonelinas
(2002) for a review of this research.) Essentially, dual-process
memory models differentiate between memory processes that occur at a conscious level and involve conceptual information that is
elaboratively encoded (recollection) and those that occur automatically at a nonconscious level and involve fluent, perceptually
based information (familiarity). In their study, Meissner et al.
demonstrated that the CRE resulted from the greater reliance on
recollection when processing own-race faces rather than other-race
faces. Familiarity was also greater for own-race faces, but this
effect was relatively weaker than the role of recollection. What this
means is that the CRE is an encoding-based phenomenon: Individuals qualitatively encode more information about own- rather
than other-race faces, and, thus, they create a mental representation
for own-race faces that is more diagnostic for subsequent recog-
One of the strongest witness characteristics associated with
identification accuracy is whether the race or ethnicity of the
eyewitness and the perpetrator are the same or different (first
reported by Malpass & Kravitz, 1969). In a meta-analysis, Meissner and Brigham (2001) reviewed 39 research studies on crossrace identification. In terms of correct identifications, averaged
across these studies, eyewitnesses were 1.4 times more likely to
correctly identify a previously viewed same-race face than a previously viewed cross-race face. In terms of misidentifications,
selection of the wrong suspect was 1.56 times more likely with
cross-race individuals than with same-race individuals. This is
referred to as the cross-race effect (CRE) or own-race bias. Consistent and robust CRE results have been reported by using numerous face recognition tasks (Lindsay, Jack, & Christian, 1991;
Marcon, Meissner, Frueh, Susa, & MacLin, 2010; Walker &
Tanaka, 2003). The CRE has also been reported to occur across
numerous racial and international groups (Chiroro, Tredoux, Radaelli, & Meissner, 2008; Goodman et al., 2007; Platz & Hosch,
1988), and contact with cross-race individuals has only a small
impact on the size of this effect (Meissner & Brigham, 2001;
Wright, Boyd, & Tredoux, 2003). This effect has also been reported to be consistent across age (Corenblum & Meissner, 2006;
Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin, & Moore, 2003). The CRE has practical
significance in real criminal cases as well. In their archival study
Kathy Pezdek, Matthew O’Brien, and Corey Wasson, Department of
Psychology, Claremont Graduate University.
This study was conducted as part of the Master of Arts theses of
Matthew O’Brien (Experiment 1) and Corey Wasson (Experiments 2) and
under the supervision of Kathy Pezdek.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathy
Pezdek, Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA 91711. E-mail: Kathy.pezdek@cgu.edu
1
2
PEZDEK, O’BRIEN, AND WASSON
nition. It is interesting to note that the reliance of the CRE on
encoding-based factors corresponds with the view of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers (1972), that an eyewitness’s
“opportunity to observe” the target face could be considered in
determining the likelihood of an accurate eyewitness identification.
What are some of the encoding processes that operate differently on same- and cross-race faces? Several of these follow
from the principles of cognitive disregard and categorization,
for example, the out-group homogeneity effect. Out-group homogeneity describes the phenomenon that members of outgroups are generally seen as less variable and less diverse than
members of in-groups (Tajfel, 1970). One of the most salient
dimensions on which in-group and out-group categorization
occurs is race (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978).
According to the out-group homogeneity account of the CRE,
majority race individuals tend to perceive out-group members
(i.e., minority race individuals) as more similar to each other
than in-group members (i.e., majority race individuals). In fact,
other-race faces are recognized (Chance & Goldstein, 1987) and
racially classified (Valentine & Endo, 1992) more quickly than
same-race faces, and this automatic tendency to categorize
other-race faces by race likely distracts from encoding individuating information about other-race faces, that is, the variant
dimensions of the faces.
This account of the CRE based on categorization of faces by
race at encoding has been articulated in the multidimensional
space (MDS) framework of Valentine (1991) and Valentine and
Endo (1992), and it has been expanded by Sporer (2001). According to Sporer’s IOM, when individuals encounter a same-race face,
they automatically encode the face at a level that preserves the
variant dimensions of that face that distinguish the face from other
similar faces in memory. In contrast, when individuals encounter a
cross-race face, the race cue automatically signals a categorization
response. As a consequence, the dimensions of the face associated
with categorizing the face by race—that is, the invariant dimensions of faces in that racial category—are more likely to be
encoded.
Are there conditions under which the CRE is even stronger,
that is, factors that moderate recognition accuracy for crossrace faces? Meissner and Brigham’s (2001) meta-analysis of the
cross-race memory research identified several variables that
moderate the CRE. For example, they reported a significant
interaction of the same- versus cross-race variable with exposure time to the target faces; the cross-race factor influences
false-alarm rates less when the cross-race target face is observed for a longer period of time. This finding is consistent
with the dual-coding account of the CRE, specifically, that the
effect is an encoding-based phenomenon.
This study investigates another encoding-based factor hypothesized to affect differentially, memory for same- and cross-race
faces—that is, whether target faces are presented individually or in
a group of multiple faces—and explores the sociocognitive mechanisms underlying this relationship. In light of the recent increase
in gang violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005), there is an
increasing likelihood that eyewitnesses will view crimes in which
there are multiple rather than individual perpetrators. This study is
important because it assesses the extent to which the magnitude of
the CRE is influenced by viewing same- and cross-race faces
presented individually or in a group of multiple faces (with individual faces presented for 5 s and 3-face groups presented for
15 s).
On the basis of the dual-coding account for the CRE, hypotheses
can be generated in regard to the effect on same- and cross-race
face recognition memory of viewing target faces presented (a) as
individual faces or (b) together in a group. If viewing target faces
in a group of faces rather than individually simply increased the
memory load for to-be-remembered faces, then a main effect of
viewing condition would be predicted (superior face recognition
memory for faces viewed individually than in groups) but no
interaction of viewing condition by the same- versus cross-race
condition. However, based on the dual-coding account, an interaction of these two factors would be predicted. Specifically, if
viewing a target out-group face in a group of other out-group faces
accentuates race as a factor in viewing the faces, it would be
predicted that a target out-group face viewed in a group of two
other out-group faces would be less accurately recognized than
that same target face viewed alone; the group of other out-group
faces would accentuate the categorizing of the faces by race and
less individuating information about the target face would be
encoded. On the other hand, in-group faces are less likely to be
categorized by race; rather, they are encoded at a level in which
more individuating information about the target face is encoded.
Thus, if the presentation time per face is the same, viewing a
same-race target face in a group of three same-race faces would
not be expected to affect face recognition accuracy relative to the
individual viewing condition.
Four procedural points are important to note up front. First,
throughout this study “group presentation of faces” refers to the
faces being presented together in a group and not a group of
participants viewing the faces; this latter condition is not varied
in this study. Second, throughout this study, the exposure time
per face is equated. Each target face viewed individually was
presented for 5 s; target faces viewed in a three-face group were
presented together for 15 s. Third, only White participants were
tested in this study. This decision followed from results of
previous research, which indicated that the CRE is more pronounced in White individuals than in any other group (Meissner
& Brigham, 2001). Accordingly, in this study, the variable race
refers to the race of the target face (that is, same-race—
White— or cross-race—Black). Finally, in this study, the
multiple-face groups always include three faces. This follows
from suggestions by Hogg (2006) and others that a collection of
individuals can be perceived as a group if it contains three or
more people. In addition, Stangor (2004) defined a social group
as “a collection of three or more individuals who are perceived,
by themselves or others, to be a group” (p. 24). Future research
will explore how group size affects memory for same- and
cross-race individuals.
Two experiments are included in this study. Experiment 1
assesses face recognition accuracy for same- and cross-race target
faces presented individually or in a three-face group. Experiment
2 examines the effect of the racial composition of the face group—
all matching (homogeneous) or not matching (heterogeneous) the
race of the target face in the group— on memory for same-and
cross-race target faces.
CROSS-RACE FACE IDENTIFICATION
Experiment 1
Method
Participants and design. Power analyses were conducted by
using methods suggested by Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner
(2007). In both experiments, the total number of participants
exceeded that required to detect effects with an effect size of .30,
␣ ⫽ .05 and power ⫽ .80. A total of 44 Caucasian college students
participated in Experiment 1. There was one exclusion criterion in
both experiments: Multivariate outliers were analyzed on the dataset using the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).
Following examination of Mahalanobis distances compared to the
critical cutoff value, 2 participants in Experiment 1 were identified
as multivariate outliers and removed from subsequent analyses.
This resulted in a final sample of 42 participants (M age ⫽ 19.92
years, SD ⫽ 1.70; 25 men, 17 women). Participants in both
experiments were recruited from Southern California colleges and
compensated with course credit. Experiment 1 was a 2 (face
presentation condition: individual and group) ⫻ 2 (race of target
face: same-race—White faces—and cross-race—Black faces)
within-subject factorial design.
Procedure and materials. Photographs for both experiments
were selected from the database of Black and White male faces
used by Meissner, Brigham, and Butz (2005).1 Two photographs
of each face were used. In the presentation phase the photographs
were of each man smiling; in the recognition test phase the
photographs were of each man with a neutral expression. The use
of a different photograph of each target face in the presentation and
test phases allows an assessment of face recognition memory and
not just photograph recognition memory. The Black and White
target faces used in this study were randomly selected from the
database and then randomly assigned to the conditions within each
experiment.
The procedure consisted of a presentation phase followed immediately by a recognition memory test phase. In the presentation
phase, participants viewed 16 target faces (4 target faces in each
condition defined by the 2 ⫻ 2 design). (See Figure 1 for examples
of the face presentation conditions.) In Experiment 1, each threeface group contained one target face and two foils of the same race
as the target face (i.e., a homogeneous group). In both experiments,
participants were never tested on the foil faces. In the group
presentation condition, each target face appeared approximately
equally often in the first, second, or third position. The assignment
of each target face to the individual versus group presentation
condition was also counterbalanced across subjects so that each
target face served approximately equally often in each of the two
presentation conditions. Presentation condition was blocked so that
approximately half of the participants viewed the block of individual faces first, and half viewed the block of three-face groups
first. Slides of target faces were presented for 5 s in the individual
presentation condition and 15 s in the three-face group presentation condition. The interstimulus interval was 1.5 s. Faces were
projected on a screen in front of the room.
Subjects participated in small groups. The size of each group
was restricted to 16 –20 subjects. Prior to the presentation phase,
participants were informed that they would view two blocks of
faces presented either as single faces or as a group of three faces,
and they were instructed to study all of the to-be-presented faces
3
carefully as they would be asked to recognize them later. In the
group presentation condition, subjects were specifically instructed
to pay careful attention to all three faces in each group. A short
practice session was administered to acquaint participants with the
pacing of the presentation phase.
The test phase immediately followed the presentation phase. A
short practice test session was introduced first to acquaint participants with the recognition memory task. In the test phase, 32 faces
were presented one at a time; half were “old” and half were “new.”
After viewing each test face, participants made two responses: (a)
a yes/no recognition memory judgment in regard to whether each
face had been in the presentation phase, and (b) a confidence rating
in each yes/no response on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all
confident) to 5 (very confident).
Results and Discussion
The results were analyzed in terms of the signal detection
measure A⬘ as well as the hit and false-alarm rate data. The means
per condition for each of these three measures are presented in
Table 1 with standard deviations and 95% confidence intervals
(CIs) included for each. A 2 (face presentation condition) ⫻ 2
(race of target face) repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed on the A⬘ and hit rate data. It is important to note that false-alarm rates could not be calculated for
individual and group presentations conditions separately because
for the new test items, from which the false-alarm rates were
derived, there were not separate presentation conditions that corresponded with this independent variable. As a result, a single
false-alarm rate was used when calculating A⬘ rates for individual
and group presentation conditions, and an ANOVA could not be
used to analyze false-alarm rate data.
The primary dependent variable was the discrimination accuracy assessed by the signal detection measure A⬘. A⬘ is a nonparametric analog of d⬘ used in tests of recognition accuracy with
forced choice answers. Measures of A⬘ are relatively less affected
by the underlying assumptions associated with d⬘ (Banks, 1970).
The values of A⬘ range from 0.00 to 1.00, with .50 associated with
chance rate. Higher values of A⬘ represent a more accurate ability
to distinguish between target faces and foil faces.
In the analysis of the A⬘ data, significant main effects of race and
presentation group condition resulted. A⬘ rates were higher for samerace faces, M ⫽ 0.75, SD ⫽ 0.19, 95% CI [.69, .81], than cross-race
faces, M ⫽ 0.49, SD ⫽ 0.28, 95% CI [.41, .57], F(1, 41) ⫽ 25.19, p ⬍
.001, ␩2 ⫽ .38; and higher for faces presented individually, M ⫽ 0.67,
SD ⫽ 0.19, 95% CI [.61, .73], than faces presented in a group, M ⫽
1
The photographs used in this study were drawn from a database
maintained by Christian Meissner (http://iilab.utep.edu/stimuli.htm). This
database was first used by Meissner et al. (2005) and was subsequently
used in several other studies (e.g., Chiroro et al., 2008; Corenblum &
Meissner, 2006). The database consists of photographed headshots of 126
Black and 184 White men of about college age. In the database there are
two photographs of each man, one with a neutral expression and one with
a smile, and each man is clothed differently in the two photographs. All
faces were photographed in front of a standard grey background. The 56
Black and 56 White target faces used in this study were randomly selected
from the database and then randomly assigned to the conditions within
each experiment.
PEZDEK, O’BRIEN, AND WASSON
4
Figure 1. Examples of a same-race target face presented individually and in a homogeneous three-face group
with foil faces of the same race as the target face.
0.56, SD ⫽ 0.22, 95% CI [.49, .63], F(1, 41) ⫽ 10.07, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽
.20. As predicted, the interaction was also significant, F(1, 41) ⫽
11.78, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .22. As can be seen in the A⬘ columns in Table
1, viewing a target face in a group of faces impaired face identification
for cross-races faces but not same-race faces. For cross-race faces,
target faces presented individually were more accurately recognized
than those presented in a group, t(41) ⫽ 3.55, p ⬍ .01. However, for
same-race faces, there was no significant difference in recognition
accuracy between target faces presented individually versus in a
group, t(41) ⫽ 0.02, p ⫽ .98.
In the analysis of the hit rate data, significant main effects of race
and group-type resulted. Hit rates were higher for same-race faces,
M ⫽ 0.69, SD ⫽ 0.22, 95% CI [.62, .76], than cross-race faces, M ⫽
0.57, SD ⫽ 0.26, 95% CI [.49, .65], F(1, 41) ⫽ 15.66, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽
.28; and higher for faces presented individually, M ⫽ 0.68, SD ⫽
0.26, 95% CI [.60, .76], than those presented in a group, M ⫽ 0.58,
SD ⫽ 0.23, 95% CI [.51, .65], F(1, 41) ⫽ 12.51, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .23.
The interaction was also significant, F(1, 41) ⫽ 4.59, p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽
.10. As can be seen in Table 1, hit rates for cross-race target faces
were higher for faces presented individually than for those in a group,
t(41) ⫽ 3.90, p ⬍ .001. However, for same-race faces, there was no
significant difference in hit rates between target faces presented individually and in a group, t(41) ⫽ 0.65, p ⫽ .52.
In the analysis of the false-alarm rate data, false-alarm rates
were higher for cross-race faces than same-race faces, t(41) ⫽
3.90, p ⬍ .001. These results can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
A⬘, Hit Rate, and False-Alarm (FA) Rate Data (SDs in Parentheses and 95% Confidence Intervals in Square Brackets) for
Experiment 1
Same-race
Face presentation
conditiona
b
Individual
A⬘
Hit rate
Cross-race
FA rate
0.75 (0.23) [.68, .82] 0.71 (0.25) [.63, .79]
A⬘
Hit rate
0.60 (0.30) [.51, .69] 0.66 (0.26) [.58, .74]
0.30 (0.21)c [.24, .36]
Groupb
0.74 (0.18) [.75, .87] 0.68 (0.19) [.62, .74]
FA rate
0.47 (0.21)c [.41, .53]
0.38 (0.38) [.27, .49] 0.48 (0.27) [.40, .56]
a
Varied within subjects. b N ⫽ 42. c It is important to note that false-alarm rates could not be calculated for the individual and group presentation
conditions separately because for the new test items, from which the false-alarm rates were derived, there were not separate presentation conditions
corresponding to this independent variable.
CROSS-RACE FACE IDENTIFICATION
The principle finding in Experiment 1 is that viewing a target
face in a group rather than individually reduced recognition accuracy for cross-race faces but not same-race faces. This finding was
significant for both A⬘ and hit rate data, suggesting that the group
presentation condition affected encoding of target faces per se and
not just the false-alarm rate to new faces. These results extend the
finding by Meissner and Brigham (2001), who reported that the
CRE is more consistently supported by false-alarm than hit rate
data. If viewing target faces in a group rather than individually
simply increased the memory load for the to-be-remembered faces,
then a main effect of face presentation condition would have
resulted without a significant interaction of face presentation condition by race of the target face. Clearly then, the effect of
presenting faces in groups rather than individually does not simply
result from increased memory load.
The obtained interaction between these two factors follows
predictions of the dual-coding account of the CRE. Specifically,
individuals qualitatively encode more information about own- than
other-race faces and, thus, create a mental representation of ownrace faces that is more diagnostic for subsequent recognition.
Further, if viewing a target out-group face (i.e., a Black face in this
study) in a group of other out-group faces accentuates race as a
factor in viewing the faces, then a target out-group face viewed in
a group of three other out-group faces would be less accurately
recognized than that same target face viewed alone; the group of
other out-group faces would accentuate the categorizing of the
faces by race and reduce encoding and representation of the
invariant dimensions of the target face. On the other hand, ingroup faces (i.e., White faces in this study) are less likely to be
categorized by race; rather, they are encoded at a level that preserves the relevant dimensions that distinguish each face from
other similar faces. Thus, with presentation time per face equated,
viewing a same-race target face in a group of three same-race faces
would not affect face recognition accuracy relative to the individual viewing condition.
Experiment 2
In the three-face groups presented in Experiment 1, all three
faces were the same race as the target face. Each Black target face
was presented with two other Black faces; each White target face
was presented with two other White faces. This group composition
is called a homogeneous group. With homogeneous groups, the
other faces in the group presentation condition always primed the
same race category as the target face. Experiment 2 tests whether
presenting each target face with faces of the same race (homogeneous viewing condition as in Experiment 1) or faces of a different
race (heterogeneous viewing condition) affects the magnitude of
the CRE. If presenting a target face in a heterogeneous group
simply presented another example of the Von Restorff effect (Von
Restorff, 1933), in which distinctive items are more likely to be
remembered, then both same- and cross-race target faces would be
recognized better when presented in heterogeneous than homogeneous groups. However, if viewing same- and cross-race target
faces in groups of multiple faces affects the salience of race as a
categorizing variable at encoding, then it would be predicted that
recognition memory for cross-race faces would be significantly
less accurate in the homogeneous than heterogeneous viewing
condition, with no difference as a function of the group-type
5
condition for same-race faces. In other words, (a) the priming of
race at encoding would be stronger for cross- than same-race faces,
and (b) an interaction would result; for cross-race faces the priming of race would be stronger for homogeneous then heterogeneous groups.
Method
Participants and design. A total of 40 Caucasian college
students participated. Two participants were identified as multivariate outliers using the exclusion criterion specified in Experiment 1. These 2 participants were removed from subsequent analyses. This resulted in a final sample of 38 participants (M age ⫽
20.63 years, SD ⫽ 5.76; 21 men, 17 women). Experiment 2 was a
2 (group type: homogeneous group and heterogeneous group) ⫻ 2
(race of target face: same-race—White faces—and cross-race—
Black faces) within-subject factorial design.
Procedure and materials. The procedure was essentially the
same as that used in Experiment 1 except that each target face was
presented in a three-face group, and the group was either homogeneous (a group of faces that were all the same race as the target
face) or heterogeneous (a group of faces that included the target
face and two faces of a different race as the target face). Each
three-face group was presented for a total of 15 s with an interstimulus interval of 1.5 s. The counterbalancing conditions used in
Experiment 1 were used in Experiment 2 as well. Target faces
appeared equally often in the first, second, and third position in
each three-face group. Presentation condition was blocked so that
approximately half of the participants viewed the homogeneous
face sets first and approximately half viewed the heterogeneous
face sets first.
Immediately following the presentation phase, 32 test faces (half
old and half new) were presented one at a time. After viewing each
test face, participants made two responses: (a) a yes/no recognition
memory judgment in regard to whether each face had been in the
presentation phase, and (b) a confidence rating in each yes/no
response on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all confident) to 5
(very confident).
Results and Discussion
The results were analyzed in terms of the signal detection
measure, A⬘, as well as the hit and false-alarm rate data. The means
per condition for each of these three measures are presented in
Table 2. A 2 (group type) ⫻ 2 (race of target face) repeatedmeasures ANOVA was performed on the A⬘ and hit rate data.
Similar to Experiment 1, false-alarm rates could not be calculated
for the homogeneous and heterogeneous group presentation conditions separately because for the new test items, from which the
false-alarm rates were derived, there were not separate presentation conditions corresponding to this independent variable. As a
result, a single false-alarm rate was used when calculating A’ rates
for homogeneous and heterogeneous presentation conditions, and
an ANOVA could not be used to analyze false alarm rate data.
The primary dependent variable was the measure A⬘. There was
a significant main effect of race; participants were more accurate
recognizing same-race, M ⫽ 0.68, SD ⫽ 0.23, 95% CI [.61, .75],
than cross-race faces, M ⫽ 0.51, SD ⫽ 0.44, 95% CI [.37, .65],
F(1, 37) ⫽ 6.16, p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .14. However, recognition
PEZDEK, O’BRIEN, AND WASSON
6
Table 2
A⬘, Hit Rate, and False-Alarm (FA) Rate Data (SDs in Parentheses and 95% Confidence Intervals in Square Brackets) for
Experiment 2
Same-race
Face presentation
conditiona
Homogeneousb
A⬘
Hit rate
Cross-race
FA rate
A⬘
0.69 (0.23) [.62, .76] 0.61 (0.24) [.53, .69]
Hit rate
0.45 (0.44) [.31, .59] 0.53 (0.23) [.46, .60]
0.33 (0.17)c [.28, .38]
Heterogeneousb
FA rate
0.68 (0.23) [.61, .75] 0.60 (0.24) [.52, .68]
0.48 (0.20)c [.42, .54]
0.57 (0.43) [.43, .71] 0.66 (0.26) [.58, .74]
a
Varied within subjects. b N ⫽ 38. c It is important to note that false-alarm rates could not be calculated for the homogeneous and heterogeneous
presentation conditions separately because for the new test items, from which the false-alarm rates were derived, there were not separate presentation
conditions corresponding to this independent variable.
accuracy did not significantly differ between faces presented in
heterogeneous and homogeneous groups. More important, as can
be seen in the A⬘ columns of Table 2, the interaction of Group
Type ⫻ Race was significant, F(1, 37) ⫽ 4.19, p ⬍ .05, ␩2 ⫽ .10.
As predicted, group type affected only memory for cross-race
faces. For cross-race faces, A⬘ rates were significantly higher for
heterogeneous than homogeneous groups, t(37) ⫽ 2.18, p ⬍ .05.
However, for same-race faces, there was no significant difference
in A⬘ rates between heterogeneous and homogeneous groups,
t(37) ⫽ 0.25, p ⫽ .80.
In the analysis of the hit rate data, the main effects of race
and group-type were not significant. However, as can be seen in
Table 2, the interaction was significant, F(1, 37) ⫽ 5.66, p ⬍
.05, ␩2 ⫽ .13. Hit rates for cross-race target faces were higher
for faces presented in heterogeneous groups than homogeneous
groups, t(37) ⫽ 2.56, p ⬍ .05. However, for same-race faces,
there was no significant difference in hit rates for target faces
presented in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, t(37) ⫽
0.29, p ⫽ .78.
In the analysis of the false-alarm rate data, a main effect of race
resulted. As can be seen in Table 2, false-alarm rates were higher
for cross-race faces than same-race faces, t(37) ⫽ 4.10, p ⬍ .001.
The results in the homogeneous group condition in Experiment 2 replicate results in the comparable condition in Experiment 1, thus, supporting the generalizability of these findings.
The principle finding in Experiment 2 was the significant
interaction of Group Type ⫻ Race: Viewing a target face in a
homogeneous group as compared to a heterogeneous group
reduced recognition accuracy for cross-race faces but not samerace faces. This finding was significant for both A⬘ and hit rate
data. The finding of a significant effect of group type for
cross-race faces but not for same-race faces suggests that the
effect of group type is not just another example of the Von
Restorff effect (Von Restorff, 1933).
The out-group homogeneity feature of the dual-coding framework offers a more compelling account of the results of Experiment 2. According to this framework, the CRE occurs because race
is more salient for out-group faces than for in-group faces. In
Experiment 2, race was made even more salient when cross-race
faces were presented in homogeneous groups of three cross-race
faces, than when they were presented in heterogeneous groups. As
a result of the increased priming of race at encoding, cross-race
target faces in homogeneous groups were more likely to be categorized by race. Consequently, encoding and representation of the
invariant dimensions of these target faces was further reduced
compared to cross-race target faces presented in heterogeneous
groups. In other words, (a) the priming of race was stronger for
cross- than same-race faces, and (b) an interaction resulted because
for cross-race faces the priming of race was stronger for target
faces presented in homogeneous groups then heterogeneous
groups.
General Discussion
This study extends the research on cross-race identification by
examining how group presentation of faces influences the CRE
and, along with findings of Meissner et al., confirming systematic
qualitative differences between the cognitive processes involved in
memory for same- and cross-race faces. The conditions that impaired cross-race but not same-race face recognition memory are
(a) group compared to individual presentation of target faces
(Experiment 1), and (b) presentation of target faces in homogeneous (all faces match the race of the target face) rather than
heterogeneous groups (foil faces do not match the race of the target
face; Experiment 2).
These findings are consistent with the dual-processing account of the CRE articulated by Meissner et al., specifically that
the CRE results from greater reliance on recollection for ownrace than other-race faces. Accordingly, individuals qualitatively encode more information about own- than other-race
faces and, thus, create a mental representation for own-race
faces that is more diagnostic for subsequent recognition. The
results of Experiment 1 suggest that when cross-race target
faces are presented in groups rather than individually, less
individuating facial information is encoded and consequently
recognition memory for the target face is reduced. The results
of Experiment 2 further suggest that when cross-race target
faces are presented in homogeneous as compared to heterogeneous groups, less individuating facial information is encoded
and recognition memory for the target face is reduced.
Another interpretation of the results of this study and the
cross-race effect more generally, is that cross-race faces are
simply more difficult to encode than are same-race faces. This
is consistent with the findings of Meissner at al. (2005) that the
CRE results from the greater reliance on recollection when
processing same-race faces than cross-race faces. This interpretation follows from the finding that the factors manipulated in
this study primarily served to enhance the cross-race effect by
CROSS-RACE FACE IDENTIFICATION
decreasing recognition memory for cross-race faces. If crossrace faces are more difficult to encode than same-race faces,
then in Experiment 1, the encoding of cross-race target faces
would be made even more difficult by presenting these faces in
the context of other difficult to encode cross-race faces compared to the individual presentation condition; the additional
cross-race faces in the group presentation condition distracted
encoding. In addition, according to this interpretation, in Experiment 2, encoding cross-race target faces was more difficult
when these faces were viewed in the context of two other
difficult to encode cross-race faces (homogeneous cross-race
condition) than two easier to encode same-race faces (heterogeneous cross-race condition); the cross-race foil faces in the
homogeneous condition distracted encoding more than did the
same-race foil faces in the heterogeneous condition.
There are caveats to consider. Only White individuals served as
participants and they were presented same-race White faces and
cross-races faces that were Black. Like other studies in the crossrace research (see, e.g., Evans, Marcon, & Meissner, 2009; Marcon
et al., 2010; Slone, Brigham, & Meissner, 2000) a completely
crossed design was not used (i.e., participants of two races were
not presented faces of individuals of those two races). In any
cross-race study that is not a completely crossed design, it is
possible that superior memory for same-race faces resulted because the White faces used in the same-race condition were simply
easier to recognize than the Black faces used in the cross-race
condition. However, the most interesting findings in this study
were the interactions, not the main effects, and the interactions
cannot be accounted for by differences in the ease of remembering
the specific faces used in the same- and cross-race condition.
This research not only extends the literature on the CRE beyond
memory for individually presented faces but it also enhances the
integration of the social psychology literature on group processing
with the cognitive psychology literature on face recognition memory. Although much is known about how group perception shapes
social behavior and how the social group to which an individual
belongs affects perception and memory for the individual, until
now, few studies have examined how social group affects face
recognition memory for an individual who is actually presented in
a group context. The results of this study suggest that the CRE is
moderated by numerous group presentation conditions, conditions
that in fact are likely to vary in real world eyewitness memory and
identification situations.
References
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human memory. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 81–99. doi:10.1037/h0029531
Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual
criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 25,
475– 491. doi:10.1023/A:1012840831846
Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1987). Retention interval and face
recognition: Response latency measures. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 25, 415– 418.
Chiroro, P. M., Tredoux, C. G., Radaelli, S., & Meissner, C. A. (2008).
Recognizing faces across continents: The effect of within-race variations
on the own-race bias in face recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 15, 1089 –1092. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1089
Corenblum, B., & Meissner, C. A. (2006). Recognition of faces of ingroup
and outgroup children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 187–206. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.001
7
Evans, J. R., Marcon, J. L., & Meissner, C. A. (2009). Cross-racial lineup
identification: The potential benefits of context reinstatement. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 15, 19 –28. doi:10.1080/10683160802047030
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and
biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 3, 175–191.
Goodman, G. S., Sayfan, L., Lee, J. S., Sandhei, M., Walle-Olsen, A.,
Magnussen, S., . . . Arrdeondo, P. (2007). The development of memory
for own- and other-race faces. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 233–242. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.08.004
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Lindsay, D. S., Jack, P. C., & Christian, M. A. (1991). Other-race face
perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 587–589. doi:10.1037//
0021-9010.76.4.587
Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and
other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330 –334.
doi:10.1037/h0028434
Marcon, J. L., Meissner, C. A., Frueh, M., Susa, K. J., & MacLin, O. H.
(2010). Perceptual identification and the CRE. Visual Cognition, 18,
767–779. doi:10.1080/13506280903178622
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. (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. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3
Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Butz, D. A. (2005). Memory for ownand other-race faces: A dual-process approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 545–567. doi:10.1002/acp.109
Neil v. Biggers. (1972). 409 U.S. 188.
Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children’s face recognition memory: More evidence for the CRE. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 760 –763. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.760
Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,
972–984.
Slone, A. E., Brigham, J. C., & Meissner, C. A. (2000). Social and
cognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in Whites. Basic & Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 71– 84. doi:10.1207/15324830051036162
Sporer, S. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 36 –97.
doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.36
Stangor (2004). Social groups in action and interaction. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tajfel, J. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific
American, 223, 96 –102. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170 –96
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978).
Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778 –793. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.36.7.778
U.S. Department of Justice, National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations. (2005). National gang threat assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/what/2005_threat_assesment.pdf
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness,
inversion and race on face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161–204. doi:10.1080/14640749108400966
Valentine, T., & Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face
processing: The effects of race and distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 671–703. doi:10.1080/
14640749208401305
Von Restorff, H. (1933). Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im
Spurenfeld (The effects of field formation in the trace field). Psychologie
Forschung, 18, 299 –342. doi:10.1007/BF02409636.
8
PEZDEK, O’BRIEN, AND WASSON
Walker, P. M., & Tanaka, J. W. (2003). An encoding advantage for
own-race versus other-race faces. Perception, 32, 1117–1125. doi:
10.1068/p5098
Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2003). Inter-racial contact
and the own-race bias for face recognition in South Africa and England.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 365–373. doi:10.1002/acp.898
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A
review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory & Language, 46,
441–517. doi:10.1006/jmla.2002.2864
Received July 14, 2011
Revision received September 6, 2011
Accepted October 27, 2011 䡲