Content uploaded by Roy S. Malpass
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roy S. Malpass on Mar 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cross-Race Effect
The cross-race effect (also referred to as
the own-race bias or other-race effect) is a facial
recognition phenomenon in which individuals
show superior performance in identifying faces
of their own race when compared with memory
for faces of another, less familiar race. Over
three decades of research on the cross-race effect
(CRE) suggests a rather robust phenomenon that
carries practical implications for cases of
mistaken eyewitness identification, particularly
in situations that involve a poor opportunity to
encode other-race faces and when a significant
amount of time occurs between observation of
the perpetrator and a test of the witness’s
memory. While the CRE has not generally been
observed in the accuracy of descriptions for
own-race vs. other-race faces, research has
found that individuals often attend to facial
features that are diagnostic for own-race faces
and misapply these feature sets when attempting
to identify and describe other-race faces. As
such, theorists have proposed that encoding and
representational processes are largely
responsible for the CRE, including the role of
interracial contact and perceptual categorization
processes. The present entry will summarize this
research on the CRE, including how it operates
in eyewitness identification and person
descriptions, the influence of certain social and
cognitive psychological mechanisms that may
underlie the effect, and the potential role of
training programs for improving other-race face
identification.
Laboratory Studies of the CRE
Over three decades of research in
cognitive and social psychology has examined
the cross-race effect (CRE), providing a
substantial body of work demonstrating the
reliability and robustness of the effect. The vast
majority of the research has focused on
individuals’ attempts to identify both own- and
other-race faces. Across studies, a “mirror
effect” pattern is generally observed, such that
individuals demonstrate both significantly
greater correct identifications of own-race faces
(referred to as “hits”) and significantly fewer
false identifications of own-race faces (referred
to as “false alarms”). Overall, participants are
1.40 times more likely to correctly identify an
own-race face, while they are 1.56 times more
likely to falsely identify an other-race face.
Composite signal detection measures of
discrimination accuracy (such as d’ or A’) and
response criterion (such as C or B”) have also
been used to describe the CRE. As might be
expected, discrimination accuracy is better for
own-race faces and individuals generally
demonstrate a more liberal response criterion for
other-race faces (indicating that they are more
likely to say “seen before” to such faces).
Several factors have been shown to
moderate the CRE. For example, studies have
shown that shorter viewing times are more likely
to produce the effect such that under brief
encoding conditions performance is superior on
own-race faces. As viewing time increases,
however, the CRE reduces in size such that
performance can become equivalent on own-
and other-race faces with a sufficient
opportunity for encoding. Retention interval, or
the time between stimulus presentation and test,
has also been shown to moderate the effect.
Studies indicate that as the retention interval
increases, participants’ response criterion
becomes more liberal for other-race faces,
thereby producing a CRE on measures of
response criterion. As such, participants are
more willing to identify other-race faces (i.e., to
respond “seen before”) when a lengthy delay
occurs between study and test phases.
Studies have evidenced the CRE across
a wide variety of ethnic and racial groups. While
the original research in this area dealt primarily
with Whites and Blacks in the United States,
more recent studies have included samples from
Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Turkey, South
Africa, and parts of the Middle East and Asia.
Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics,
Natives/Indians, Jews, and Arabs, among others,
have been included in these studies with each
demonstrating a CRE in face identification
performance. Research has shown that, in
general, Whites demonstrate a larger CRE than
Blacks with respect to measures of
discrimination accuracy, and that “majority-
group” individuals demonstrate a more robust
CRE than do “minority-group” individuals.
The CRE in Eyewitness Identification & Person
Descriptions
Laboratory research on the CRE has
suggested a rather robust phenomenon with
some practical implications, particularly with
regard to witnesses in real cases who may be
confronted by an assailant of a different race or
ethnicity. Could such situations lead to an
increased risk of mistaken identification and/or
failures to identify the perpetrator? Studies that
have investigated eyewitness identification
suggest that the CRE occurs just as frequently in
laboratory “facial recognition” paradigms as
they do in simulated “eyewitness identification”
paradigms involving a single “perpetrator” at
study and a six- or eight-person “lineup”
presented at test. As such, researchers have
suggested that the CRE is likely to be seen in
real cases of eyewitness identification, most
especially when the opportunity to view the
perpetrator is limited and when a significant
amount of time passes between the crime event
and the attempted lineup identification
(consistent with the moderating factors
discussed above). Along these lines, researchers
have examined whether mistaken eyewitness
identification, and the CRE in particular, may
play a critical role in cases of wrongful
conviction. Data from these studies indicate that
nearly 40% of cases involving mistaken
identification result from the CRE. Archival
studies of real cases have also indicated that the
likelihood of identifying an own-race suspect is
significantly greater than that of an other-race
suspect, particularly when there is strong
evidence to suggest his/her culpability.
Witnesses to a crime are frequently
asked to provide a verbal description of the
perpetrator they viewed. These descriptions are
then used by investigators in attempting to
identify a suspect in the immediate vicinity.
Given the robustness of the CRE in face
identification, researchers have also investigated
whether a similar effect might be evidenced in
person descriptions. To date, only a handful of
studies have examined this possibility, with the
majority concluding that no differences exist in
the accuracy of descriptions provided for own-
race vs. other-race faces. However, researchers
have found that individuals of different
races/ethnicities often report different features
when differentiating faces, and further that these
features are most useful for characterizing faces
of their own race. For example, Caucasians
frequently use hair color, hair texture, and eye
color to distinguish faces, whereas African-
Americans rely upon face outline, eye size,
eyebrows, chin, and ears. While it is clear that
we try to distinguish faces of other races by the
facial features that are distinguishable within our
own race, the problem appears to lie in that
those same features are generally less useful
when applied to other-race faces.
Theoretical Underpinnings of the CRE
Several theoretical mechanisms have
been identified with regard to the CRE,
including interracial contact and social attitudes,
encoding and representational processes,
perceptual-memory expertise, and perceptual
categorization. First, racial contact and attitudes
have been implicated as moderators of the CRE.
Across studies, interracial contact has been
shown to account for a small, but significant,
amount of variance in performance on other-race
faces such that greater interracial contact tends
to reduce the size of the observed CRE.
Furthermore, studies have suggested that the
form of interracial contact may be important to
its influence of face identification such that
individuals must be motivated to individuate
other-race members through contact (i.e., social
utility). The properties of natural social
environments that foster the development of
high performance levels with other-race faces
are presently unknown. While social attitudes
have not been shown to directly moderate the
CRE, an indirect relationship appears to exist
such that social attitudes may account for the
amount of interracial contact one engages in and
thereby influence the CRE. For example,
individuals who profess prejudiced attitudes
towards other-race groups are less likely to have
significant amounts of contact with such
individuals and, as a result, appear more likely
to demonstrate the CRE. However, the causal
direction of the contact – attitude relationship is
more difficult to identify, and could work in
either direction.
A great deal of research suggests that
encoding and representational processes may be
responsible for recognition differences in the
CRE. As noted above, individuals of different
races/ethnicities appear to rely upon different
feature sets when encoding faces, and these
feature sets appear to be most useful when
encoding faces of one’s own race. In addition,
individuals have been shown to attend to greater
numbers of features for own-race faces, and to
group or “chunk” these features when
representing the face. As a result, own-race faces
are better differentiated in memory based upon
these feature sets, while other-race faces appear
to be more clustered and less differentiated. This
encoding and representational advantage allows
individuals the ability to better “recollect” own-
race faces at test based upon those features
identified and selected at encoding. In contrast,
the clustering of other-race faces in memory
leads to poorer recognition performance at test
and, most prominently, a greater likelihood of
falsely identifying a novel other-race face.
Studies that have validated the role of
encoding and representational processes in the
CRE also suggest that individuals’ processing of
own-race faces might be likened to that of an
“expert” perceptual-memory skill. One such
theory proposes that faces may be encoded with
respect to individual features or isolated aspects
(i.e., “featural” processing) and with regard to
configural or relational aspects among features
(i.e., “configural” processing). Studies suggest
that “experts” encode objects (such as faces) in a
more configural manner, while “novices”
encode objects on a more featural basis. Using a
variety of paradigms, researchers have
demonstrated that own-race faces appear to be
processed in a more configural manner
(consistent with expert-level processing), while
other-race faces are processed with respect to
individual features (consistent with novice-level
processing).
Research studies have also noted that
the CRE may be due to a process of racial
categorization. In particular, individuals appear
process other-race faces at a superficial level
that is consumed with a focus towards racial
categorization. As a result of these
categorization processes, other-race faces are
coded with an emphasis on category-related
information (stereotypes) and less with regard to
individuating information. Researchers have
demonstrated that such categorization processes
can both influence our perception of a face (i.e.,
stereotype consistent) and lead to deficits in
performance consistent with CRE.
Improving the Recognition of Other-Race Faces
Given the bulk of research suggesting
that the CRE may be a product of interracial
contact and the role of encoding-based
mechanisms (e.g., perceptual learning),
researchers have attempted to develop a variety
of training programs over the years to improve
participants’ recognition of other-race faces.
While some of these studies included forms of
positive and negative feedback, others have
focused upon improving participants’ ability to
distinguish between other-race faces and
teaching participants to identify “critical” feature
sets that are useful for discriminating such faces.
Taken together, these studies have generally met
with some success in producing short-term
improvements in recognition performance;
however, when participants are tested at longer
post-training retention intervals this
improvement in performance tends to diminish.
Nevertheless, these studies suggest that
individuals may be trained to improve their face
recognition performance to a certain extent, and
researchers continue to develop training
protocols that might be employed by
government agents or business professionals
who may be sent abroad.
Jessica L. Marcon, Christian A. Meissner, &
Roy S. Malpass
University of Texas at El Paso
Cross-References: Description Accuracy;
Estimator and System Variables; Expert
Psychological Testimony on Eyewitness
Identification; Exposure Time; Eyewitness
Identification, Field Studies; Eyewitness
Memory; Exposure Time; Training of
Eyewitnesses.
Further Readings
Brigham, J. C., Bennett, L. B., Meissner, C. A.,
& Mitchell, T. L. (2006). The influence of
race on eyewitness memory. In R. Lindsay,
D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia, (Eds).
Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology:
Memory for People, (pp. 257-281).
Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty
years of investigating the own-race bias in
memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.
Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.
Sporer, S. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other
ethnic groups: An integration of theories.
Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 36-
97.
