Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Are women always better able to recognize
faces? The unveiling role of exposure time
Torben HansenID
1☯
*, Judith Zaichkowsky
2☯
, Ad de Jong
1☯
1Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2Beedie School of
Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
☯These authors contributed equally to this work.
*th.marktg@cbs.dk
Abstract
A longer exposure time generally improves individuals’ ability to recognize faces. The cur-
rent research investigates whether this effect varies between genders and whether it is influ-
enced by the gender of the exposed faces. Based on a set of four experimental studies, we
advance our knowledge of face recognition, gender, gender distribution of exposed faces,
and exposure time in three main ways. First, the results reveal that women are more likely
than men to suffer from a decrease in face recognition ability due to a lower exposure time.
Second, the findings show that when exposure time is short (vs. long) women recognize a
larger proportion of same gender faces and also recognize a larger proportion of same gen-
der faces as compared with the proportion of same gender faces recognized by men. Third,
findings reveal that when individuals are only exposed to same gender faces, women recog-
nize more faces than men regardless whether exposure time is short, or long. In short, the
findings of this research suggest that insight into the interplay between gender and exposure
time length is critical to appropriately determine human beings’ ability to recognize faces.
Introduction
The ability to recognize strangers from previous interactions is an important application to
security, service roles, and various business and social scenarios. While prior research suggests
that women are better than men at recognizing faces [1,2], one intriguing research topic is the
interplay among gender, face recognition, and exposure time. Say, both Tom and Janet have
been exposed to the same number of faces at the same events. Critical questions are then:
whether they have the same ability to recognize faces afterwards; whether they are more capa-
ble of recognizing faces of their own gender; and whether their ability to recognize faces is
influenced by exposure time. The extant literature on face recognition emphasizes that a longer
exposure time generally improves individuals’ ability to recognize faces [3,4]. In addition, sev-
eral other studies on face recognition demonstrate superior recognition for an individual to
recognize their own gender relative to the other [5,6].
Faces contain a rich reservoir of information on factors such as gender, age, mood, social
category, traits, and trustworthiness [5,7,8], and are arguably the most important social
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 1 / 16
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Hansen T, Zaichkowsky J, de Jong A
(2021) Are women always better able to recognize
faces? The unveiling role of exposure time. PLoS
ONE 16(10): e0257741. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0257741
Editor: Joydeep Bhattacharya, Iowa State
University, UNITED STATES
Received: April 21, 2021
Accepted: September 8, 2021
Published: October 28, 2021
Copyright: ©2021 Hansen et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The data set
necessary to replicate the study findings has been
uploaded to Open Science Framework. DOI 10.
17605/OSF.IO/W7APV.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
stimuli in interactions [9]. While face recognition is essential for many daily and social activi-
ties, it is also known that individuals vary considerably in their ability to recognize faces [10,
11]. Therefore, we believe that a more complete understanding of face recognition should con-
sider both exposure time and gender. While exposure time and gender have been extensively
studied as factors that have an influence on an individual’s ability to recognize faces, the inter-
play between these two factors has received less research attention.
In response to this, our study contributes to the existing literature by examining how the
interaction of exposure time with gender and gender distribution of exposed faces affects an
individual’s face recognition performance. It is relevant to take the exposure time factor into
account as time often is a scarce resource having a huge impact on outcomes. For instance, the
theory of selective attention contends that human beings have limited cognitive capacity and
are selective in their attention [12,13], which prevents them from attending to all issues that
arise. This especially applies to settings, where time is limited and thus a scarce resource.
Based on face processing theory and gender theory, our study elaborates on this interplay
and demonstrates that an investigation of face recognition should distinguish between the gen-
ders of the persons who are exposed to various faces versus the genders of these faces them-
selves. Four experimental studies, which manipulate exposure time and face images in several
combinations, are conducted to test the hypotheses. Specifically, this study expands the present
body of research in three ways. First, we show that the effect of exposure time is dependent on
both gender and gender distribution of exposed faces. We find that women, in general, show a
decrease in face recognition ability due to a lower exposure time. However, we find that when
exposure time is short (vs. long) women recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces
and recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces as compared with the proportion of
same gender faces recognized by men. Third, when individuals are only exposed to same gen-
der faces, women recognize more faces than men irrespective of exposure time.
These results are of interest to those who rely on confident identification of previous facial
exposures in their day-to-day interactions. Whether it be a safety concern, social, or business
interaction, the correct identification of previous encounters can be beneficial in deciding
which gender to place in certain positions of initial encounters. Gender differences in face rec-
ognition and its interaction with exposure time yields new insights and implies that managers
should use a differentiated approach in guiding male versus female employees to optimize out-
comes. For instance, the results of the present study suggest that females are more likely than
their male counterparts to suffer from a decrease in face recognition ability due to a lower
exposure time.
Gender differences and exposure time
A recent meta-analysis found that women are better than men at recognizing faces (Hedges’ g
= .36), with the advantage seen primarily for female faces [2]. Several background explanations
have been offered for women’s superior face recognition ability, such as greater self-reported
social engagement [14], increased encoding specificity of faces [15], and superior detection of
facial expression [16]. Research has also proposed that individuals may differ according to
whether their general mode of processing information can be described as mainly experiential
[17,18] versus mainly detailed [19].
While the different modes normally engage in integrated interaction [20], some effort has
been devoted to investigating whether gender differences may influence whether one mode of
processing is more dominant than the other. Prior research [21–23] has found general gender-
related differences in the strategies used to process information, such that women are more
likely than men to show a detailed elaboration of information content, whereas men are more
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 2 / 16
likely to show an overall information theme. One face recognition study [20] attributed supe-
rior face recognition in females to higher elaboration during face encoding. Other face recog-
nition research [16] found (a) that women showed longer dwell time to the eyes compared to
males and (b) a positive relationship between number of fixations to the eyes and accuracy of
facial expression recognition. These findings are consistent with research based on social com-
parison theory suggesting that females are more likely to engage in time-consuming compari-
sons of facial characteristics from a young age [24].
While previous research has found that women are better than men at recognizing faces, no
previous research known to us has investigated whether this ability is consistent across expo-
sure time. Parkinson’s Law states that work expands to fill the time available, suggesting that as
the time available to perform a task increases, so would the requirement for information to be
potentially used in the task. This is in line with research suggesting that under time-pressure
individuals tend to show greater selectivity when processing information [25]. In accordance
with this result, one study found that a longer exposure time increased participants’ ability to
discriminate between two inverted whole faces (i.e., a more demanding task compared to dis-
criminating between upright whole faces) [3], indicating that time availability facilitates a
more detailed processing of information.
Therefore, when we are given sufficient time, we should be more likely to process a face
stimulus sequentially; local part by local part, which in turn is likely to increase our ability to
individualize faces and to discriminate among them. This view is supported by recent research
suggesting that misaligning facial composites, a technique widely accepted to inhibit holistic
face processing, can significantly elevate face recognition [26] and is also in line with research
suggesting that when individuals perceive faces some local parts may indeed be more diagnos-
tic than others, such as the region of the eyes [27–29].
On the basis of the above discussion suggesting that (a) females are more likely than males
to show a detailed elaboration of information content and (b) that a detailed elaboration is
more time-consuming, we predict that a long exposure time is relatively more beneficial to
females than to males. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: Compared to females, males will recognize more faces when exposure time is short (vs.
long).
H1b: Compared with males, females will recognize more faces when exposure time is long (vs.
short).
Own group bias and exposure times
Prior research suggests that an own group bias takes place in face recognition such that indi-
viduals are generally better at recognizing faces of their own age than older or younger faces
[30,31] and faces of their own race versus another race [6,32]. Previous research also suggests
that women are better at recognizing female over male faces [33–35]. However, less consistent
results have been found for men.
While some studies suggest that men are better at recognizing male faces than female faces
[35], other studies found that men were more able to recognize female faces versus male faces
[1], and still other studies suggested that men recognized male and female faces equally well
[33,34]. We believe that these effects may be influenced by time-pressure, since individuals
under time-pressure may be less likely to extend the scope of the task (e.g., accounting for
social interaction implications) and more likely to focus on the task at hand (e.g., focusing
their attentional resources on remembering faces) [36].
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 3 / 16
In that respect, the speed-accuracy tradeoff paradigm posits that categorization based on
discriminability (e.g., females vs. males) is a key determinant in lowering processing time [37].
Furthermore past research indicates that when under time-pressure, and when confronted
with discriminating stimuli, selective perception would appear and individuals may tend to
focus on information that are more similar to their perceived self-identity [25,38]. Based on
this reasoning, we propose that exposure time will influence the presence of own group (i.e.,
own gender) bias in face recognition such that both females and males will show a higher pro-
pensity to recognize same gender faces versus faces of the opposite gender when exposure time
is short (vs. long). Hence, we hypothesize as follows:
H2: Individuals will recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces when exposure time is
short (vs. long).
A meta-analysis of own-gender bias in face recognition [2] found that women are better at
recognizing female faces when respondents are exposed to a mix of female and male faces, but
that women also outperform men when only male faces are shown. The authors suggest that
women’s better performance in face recognition takes place because women may focus more
attentional resources on remembering female faces when presented with a mix of male and
female faces. When only male faces are shown they perform better than men because all atten-
tional resources can then be devoted to male faces. While the meta-analysis [2] did not include
variations in exposure time, we propose that regardless of exposure time (i.e., short vs. long),
women will recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces compared with the proportion
of same gender faces recognized by men.
Our reasoning is based on research suggesting that (a) women and men may encode infor-
mation using different socially-constructed cognitive structures, which influence their percep-
tions and allocations of attentional resources [39,40]; (b) while women may generally show a
higher interest in other women (as compared with the interest of men in other men) [1] evi-
dence also suggests that women are more attentive and responsive to cues with a perceived
social relevance [40]. Hence, even though both men and women may devote more attentional
resources to same gender faces when exposure time is short (vs. long) this type of resource allo-
cation can be expected to be especially prevalent among women; and (c) when exposure time
is long, substantial research suggests that women may have an advantage over men in recogni-
tion of female faces whereas no general, similar pattern has been detected for men [2]. To con-
clude, we propose that exposure time will influence own gender bias in face recognition as
follows.
H3. Regardless of whether exposure time is short or long, females will recognize a larger pro-
portion of same gender faces compared with the proportion of same gender faces recog-
nized by males.
Methodology and results
Ethics statement
The authors declare that the data were collected in a manner consistent with ethical standards
for the treatment of human subjects according to the principles expressed in the Declaration
of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Copenhagen Business School Ethics Council. The
respondents were asked to state their gender, but not to identify themselves in any other way,
i.e., by name, or anything else. Hence, full anonymity was offered. Also, respondents were
informed that it was not mandatory to participate. All respondents stated their informed
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 4 / 16
consent orally before starting the study. The informed consent was witnessed by all other
respondents and further documented by no respondents having any concerns about the study
procedure. Afterwards, the completed forms were collected with no possibility of identifying
non-participating respondents.
Pretests
The face images used in the studies were obtained from the Face-Place Face Database Project
[41]. We followed the procedure used by Suri and Monroe [42] and conducted two pretests in
order to develop the manipulations of exposure time. The purpose of the first pretest was to
determine the average time required to process 30 face images (15 being female images) when
these images are presented together at a computer screen. A total of 58 graduate students par-
ticipated in the first pretest. The participants were instructed to carefully look at the presented
face images and to spend the time needed for them to be able to recognize the images after-
wards. The time needed was computer registered and average reported time was 79.8 seconds.
Consistent with our expectations that women (vs. men) are likely to engage in more time con-
suming face processing, the time needed was higher for females (M= 84.7, SD = 14.5) than
men (M= 74.5, SD = 16.0), t= 2.56, p= .01. Based on the results of pretest 1, five short expo-
sure time conditions (10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 40 seconds, and 50 seconds) and
five long exposure time conditions (90 seconds, 100 seconds, 110 seconds, 120 seconds, and
130 seconds) were selected for further testing in pretest 2.
In pretest 2, participants were exposed to 30 faces (15 being female) with instructions the
same as in pretest 1. Pretest 2 indicated the appropriateness of the time pressure conditions
using the Suri and Monroe [42] subjective time pressure three-item scale. A sample item for
this scale is ‘How would you characterize the time available for completing this task?’
(1 = more than adequate time available; 7 = not adequate time available). Ninety-one graduate
students were distributed relatively equally across the time pressure conditions. Two criteria
guided the selection of the time pressure conditions. First, the high time pressure condition
should preferably be at least one standard deviation (SD = 15.94) below the mean time partici-
pants needed to make their choice in pretest 1 [43,44]. Second, the high time pressure condi-
tion should be associated with time pressure (i.e., both the mean and the median of the
averaged perceived three-item scale should be above the scale midpoint), while not making it
impossible for respondents to perform the decision task (i.e., all respondents should have com-
pleted their choice within the time limits).
The Cronbach’s alpha value of the three-item subjective time pressure scale was.85, indicat-
ing sufficient scale reliability [45]. Also, a principal component analysis of the three items sug-
gested a one-factor solution (based on the eigenvalue >1.0 criterion) with consistently high
loadings (ranging from.74 to.80) suggesting that the three items are essentially unidimensional
[45]. Hence, we averaged the subjective time pressure scale by averaging the items together as
an estimate of the construct value. The results led to the selection of 45 seconds (low exposure
time) and 120 seconds (long exposure time). 45 seconds was chosen since subjective time pres-
sure was almost identical for the 40 seconds (M= 4.57) and 50 seconds (M= 4.53) conditions.
Averaged scale means (i.e., ranging from 1 to 7) were M= 5.48 (low exposure time) and
M= 3.32 (long exposure time), t= 9.60, p<.01. Notably, our pre-tests are in line with the
recent study conducted by Palmer, Brewer, and Horry [11], which used five seconds per face
for the purpose of studying face recognition ability, although this study did not include varia-
tions in exposure time. Our research is based on four experimental studies, which manipulate
exposure time and face images in several combinations.
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 5 / 16
Study 1
Method. Sixty-eight graduate students were recruited (34 female). A power analysis
revealed that a medium effect of the interaction between gender and exposure time with a
power of 0.80 would require a minimum sample of 68 respondents suggesting a reasonable
sample size for study 1. The number of respondents in studies 2–4 (see below) was 131, 110,
and 124, respectively; indicating sufficient sample sizes for these studies. Based on prior
research [2,3] partial η
2
for the gender-exposure time interaction was set to 0.10 in the power
analysis.
Respondents were exposed to two experimental tasks. In the first task, a total of 30 face
images were shown for 45 s. (i.e., 1.5 s. per image on average). Respondents were instructed to
study the face images intensively so that they would later be able to remember as many images
as possible. After completing this initial requirement, respondents were shown 10 faces (five of
these being new images) for 60 s. with instructions to indicate the five images they believe had
already been displayed. The five already seen images were randomly chosen from the 30
images pool. All the 10 images (5 already seen; 5 new) were shown together using a screen pro-
jector. The respondents were handed out a form where they were instructed to note the recog-
nized faces. Sixty seconds was chosen in the recognition task because our pilot test suggests
that this is a suitable time span, long enough to allow recognition activities to take place but
not so long that participants may lose mental focus. These considerations were confirmed by
interviews with participants after they had completed the required experimental tasks.
In both the five repeated images and the five new images groups, respectively, three of the
images were females with the gender distribution being unrevealed to the participants. In the
second task, respondents were exposed to another 30 face images which were shown for 120 s.
(i.e., four seconds per image on average). The remainder of the second task was identical to the
first task. We selected an unequal gender distribution in the repeated and new images groups
because we wanted to take into account the possibility that participants, when in doubt of the
‘correct’ answer(s), might display an unequal propensity to randomly choose between female
or male face images. This could be the case since previous research suggests that women and
men may show an unequal attraction to same gender faces and to faces of the opposite gender
[1,2]. For that purpose, study three (see below) repeats study one but with a counter-balanced
gender distribution in both the repeated and new images groups such that two females and
three males (as opposed to three females and two males in the current study one) were
included in each group.
Results and discussion. Hypotheses testing. As expected from previous research, partici-
pants exposed to a long exposure time (LT) were able to remember more faces correctly
(M= 4.28) than participants exposed to a short exposure time (ST), (M= 3.24), F= (1, 135) =
56.03, p<.01, η
2
= .30. A two (short vs. long face exposure time) x two (males vs. females)
ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between image exposure time and gender, F(1,
135) = 8.10, p<.01, η
2
= .06 (Fig 1).
Supporting H1a, we found that males (M= 3.53) recognized more faces than females
(M= 2.94) in the ST condition, t= 2.95, p= .01, whereas there were no face recognition differ-
ences between genders (Mmales = 4.17, Mfemales = 4.38) in the LT condition, t= 1.05, p= .30,
although the mean difference was in the expected direction. Hence, H1b was not supported in
Study 1.
Two additional 2 (short vs. long exposure time) x 2 (males vs. females) ANOVAs suggested
a significant main effect of gender on the ability to recognize female faces (Mmales = 2.18, Mfe-
males = 2.71), F(1, 135) = 19.76, p<.01, η
2
= .13, and on the ability to recognize male faces
(Mmales = 1.69, Mfemales = .99), F(1, 135) = 41.91, p<.01, η
2
= .24. Moreover, both female
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 6 / 16
and male participants recognized a larger proportion of same gender faces in the ST condition
(female: M= .83; male: M= .55) than in the LT condition (female: M= .72; male: M= .37);
females: t= 2.40, p= .02; males: t= 4.26, p<.01. Hence, H2 was supported. Also supporting
H3, females showed a higher tendency than males to recognize same gender faces in both the
ST condition, t= 5.22, p<.01, and the LT condition, t= 10.63, p<.01.
Reflecting this parallel tendency across exposure time conditions, the interaction between
image exposure time and gender did not influence participants’ propensity to show same gen-
der recognition, F(1, 135) = 1.70, p= .20, η
2
= .01. The results of study one support our expec-
tations that males will recognize more faces than females in the ST condition and that both
males and females will recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces in the ST (vs. LT)
condition. We also found that females recognized more same gender faces than males in both
the ST and LT conditions. However, contrary to our expectations, the results did not confirm
that females will recognize more faces than males in the LT condition.
Study 2
Method. Study 2 was identical to study 1 with the important modification of decreasing
exposure time in the first task of the 30 face images for just 10 s. (i.e., approx..33 s. per image
on average). The second task exposed participants to 30 face images for 120 s. as in study one
(i.e., 4.0 s. per image on average). Specifically, we wanted to investigate whether (a) the
decrease in exposure time from 45 s. to 10. s. led to a decrease in face recognition; (b) males
still would be able to recognize more faces than females in the ST condition when processing
Fig 1. Study 1: Interaction between exposure time and gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741.g001
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 7 / 16
time was reduced nearly to a practical minimum; and (c) whether the difference between
females and males face recognition ability would be increased or decreased compared with
study 1 results. The gender distribution in the repeated/new five images groups was similar to
study 1 with three female face images included in each group. One hundred thirty-one gradu-
ate students (70 female) participated in Study 2. Exposure time was manipulated as between
subjects.
Results and discussion. Participants exposed to a long image exposure time (LT) were
able to remember more faces correctly (M= 3.82) than participants exposed to a short image
exposure time (ST), (M= 2.45), F= (1, 130) = 92.86, p<.01, η
2
= .42. The results suggested a
significant interaction between exposure time and gender, F(1, 130) = 7.98, p<.01, η
2
= .06
(Fig 2).
The interaction between image exposure time and gender significantly influenced partici-
pants’ propensity to show same gender recognition, F(1, 130) = 17.84, p<.01, η
2
= .12 (Fig 3).
Consistent with the results found in Study 1, and supporting H1a, males (M= 2.74) recog-
nized more faces than females (M= 2.16) in the ST condition, t= 2.73, p<.01. H1b was not
supported in study two as females did not recognize more faces than males in the LT condition
(Mfemales = 3.90, Mmales = 3.70), t= 1.11, p= .27, although the mean difference was in the
expected direction.
Two additional 2 (short vs. long exposure time) x 2 (men vs. women) ANOVAs suggested a
significant main effect of gender on the ability to recognize female faces (Mmales = 2.11, Mfe-
males = 1.84), F(1, 130) = 3.91, p= .05, η
2
= .03, but not on the ability to recognize male faces
(Mmales = 1.39, Mfemales = 1.50), F(1, 130) = .09, p= .77, η
2
<.01. Female participants
Fig 2. Study 2: Interaction between exposure time and gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741.g002
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 8 / 16
recognized a larger proportion of same gender faces in the ST condition (M= .92) than in the
LT condition (M= .46), t= 3.89, p<.01, whereas male participants recognized a smaller pro-
portion of male faces in the ST condition (M= .37) than in the LT condition (M= .49),
t= 2.14, p= .04. Hence, H2 was partially supported in study 2. H3 was also partially supported
as females showed a higher tendency than males to recognize same gender faces in the ST con-
dition (females: M= .92, males: M= .37; t= 4.03, p<.01), but not in the LT condition
(females: M= .46, males: M= .49; t= .73, p= .47).
Consistent with our expectations, the decrease in exposure time from 45 s. (study 1) to 10 s.
(study 2) in the ST condition led to a decrease in face recognition (45 s.: M= 3.24, 10 s.:
M= 2.45; t= 5.11, p<.01). Across studies one and two, the interaction between gender and
the variation in the ST condition (F(1, 129) = .01, p<.98, η
2
<.01) and between gender and
the variation in the LT condition F(1, 129) = .01, p<.97, η
2
<.01) did not influence face rec-
ognition ability suggesting that the difference between female and male face recognition ability
was robust both across variations in exposure time (with respect to the ST condition: 45 s. vs.
10 s.) and across studies (with respect to the LT condition: 120 s. in both studies 1 and 2).
Consistent with previous research [3,4], the results of study 2 confirms that a decrease in
exposure time (from 45 s. in study 1 to 10 s. in study 2) lead to a decrease in face recognition
ability. We also found that men were still able to recognize more faces than women in the ST
condition when processing time was reduced to a minimum. The results also suggest that the
difference between women’s and men’s face recognition ability was neither increased nor
decreased when compared with study 1.
Fig 3. Study 2: Interaction between exposure time and gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741.g003
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 9 / 16
Study 3
Method. The purpose of study 3 was to replicate study 1 but with a counter-balanced gen-
der distribution in the repeated/new five images groups such that two female face images (as
opposed to three female face images in study 1) were included in each group. One hundred
and ten graduate students (55 being female) participated in study 3.
Results and discussion. The results suggested a significant interaction between image
exposure time and gender, F(1, 109) = 4.18, p= .04, η
2
= .04 (Fig 4).
Similar to study 1, participants exposed to a long image exposure time (LT) remembered
more faces correctly (M= 3.81) than participants exposed to a shorter image exposure time
(ST), (M= 3.02), F= (1, 109) = 20.98, p<.01, η
2
= .16. Supporting H1a, men (M= 3.27) recog-
nized more faces than women (M= 2.74) in the ST condition, t= 2.24, p= .03. H1b was not
supported in Study 3 as there were no face recognition differences between genders
(Mmale = 3.72, Mfemale = 3.89) in the LT condition, t= .70, p= .49, although the mean differ-
ence was in the expected direction.
Two additional 2 (short vs. long exposure time) x 2 (male, vs. female) ANOVAs showed sig-
nificant main effects of gender both on the ability to recognize female faces (Mmale = 1.15,
Mfemale = 1.65), F(1, 109) = 13.89, p<.01, η
2
= .12, and on the ability to recognize male faces
(Mmale = 2.40, Mfemale = 1.76), F(1, 109) = 24.85, p<.01, η
2
<.19. While female participants
recognized a larger proportion (t= 2.81, p<.01) of same gender faces in the ST condition (M
= .94) than in the LT condition (M= .71), the proportion of same gender faces recognized by
men was not different (t= .82, p= .42) across conditions (ST condition: M= .82, LT condition:
Fig 4. Study 3: Interaction between exposure time and gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741.g004
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 10 / 16
M= .77), although the mean difference was in the expected direction. Hence, H2 was partially
supported. Women showed a higher tendency than men to recognize same gender faces in the
ST condition, t= 2.09, p= .04, but not in the LT condition, t= .70, p= .43. Hence, H3 was also
partially supported in study 3.
Supporting the robustness of our studies, the results of study 3 were similar to the study 1
results on the majority of the investigated aspects: (1) participants exposed to a long image
exposure time remembered more faces correctly than participants exposed to a shorter image
exposure time; (2) males recognized more faces than females in the ST condition, and (3) no
gender difference in face recognition ability was found in the LT condition.
Moreover, and consistent with the study 1 results, female participants recognized a larger
proportion of same gender faces in the ST condition than in the LT condition and women
showed a higher tendency than men to recognize same gender faces in the ST condition. How-
ever, contrary to the study 1 results, the proportion of same gender faces recognized by men
was not different across conditions (ST vs. LT) and we also did not find that women had a
higher tendency than men to recognize same gender faces in the LT condition.
Study 4
Method. Studies 1–3 produced mixed results regarding the ability to recognize same gen-
der faces. While Study 1 suggested that females showed a higher tendency than males to recog-
nize same gender faces in both the ST and the LT conditions, studies 2 and 3 indicated that
this tendency was more likely to appear in the ST condition. Hence, we wanted to investigate
more thoroughly whether females are more likely than males to recognize same gender faces
across both ST and LT conditions. In Study 4, participants were only exposed to same gender
face images (n = 30); with the repeated (n = 5) and new images (n = 5) groups consisting of
same gender face images. One hundred twenty-four graduate students (58 female) participated
in Study 4. As in studies 1 and 3, exposure times were 45 s. (ST condition) and 120 s. (LT con-
dition) respectively.
Results and discussion. Consistent with the results obtained in studies 1–3, participants
exposed to a long image exposure time (LT) were able to remember more face images correctly
(M= 3.83) than participants exposed to a short image exposure time (ST), (M= 3.25), F= (1,
123) = 4.54, p= .04, η
2
= .04. Female participants recognized more face images in both the ST
condition (women: M= 3.57, men: M= 2.96; t= 2.00, p= .05) and the LT condition (females:
M= 4.25, males: M= 3.50; t= 2.01, p= .05). Reflecting this consistency across conditions we
found a significant main effect of gender (F= (1, 123) = 6.42, p= .01, η
2
= .05), whereas the
interaction between image exposure time and gender was non-significant (F= (1, 123) = .06, p
= .80, η
2
<.01) (Fig 5).
Studies 1–3 all indicated that males recognized more faces than females in the ST condi-
tions, whereas we found no gender difference in face recognition ability in the LT conditions.
However, studies 1–3 all exposed participants to a mix of female and male face images as well
as mixed gender distribution in both the repeated and new image groups. When participants
were only exposed to same gender faces, females clearly recognized more faces than males in
both the ST and the LT conditions.
Discussion and conclusions
The present study reveals that assessing the interplay between gender, gender distribution of
exposed faces, and exposure time is critical to get insight into women’s and men’s ability to
recognize faces. We expand the extant body of research that revealed that women remember
more faces than men by adding important nuances of both the length of exposure time and the
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 11 / 16
gender distribution of exposed faces (see [2] for an overview). More specifically, in studies 1–3
we find that men recognize more faces than women when exposure time is short (vs. long).
This result is consistent with our arguments that women tend to engage in a detailed elabora-
tion of information content using more time-consuming face processing, which turns out to
be more effective for longer exposure time. This finding also relates to social comparison the-
ory, which suggests that males and females are likely to develop different sets of values and
motivations, which may lead them to develop different perceptions and behaviors in similar
contexts [46].
Our results clearly indicate that exposure time acts as an important contingency of the
effectiveness of the human face processing. Shorter exposure times associate with higher face
recognition performance of overall face processing, while for longer exposure times, detailed
face processing yields higher face recognition performance rates. This proposition is consistent
with the general contention that the impact of the individual specialized functions of the brain
hemispheres on human performance is contingent on contextual factors, like exposure time
[47]. While we attribute our findings to gender differences in face elaboration, we cannot rule
out that other explanations may further detail the results. Given that no gender difference is
observed in the LT condition, the results could also imply that men are more strategic in the
ST condition. For example men (vs. women) may be more likely to focus on just a few face
characteristics during exposure time and then seek to remember these few characteristics
instead of the whole faces. Future research may wish to investigate such issues by using eye
Fig 5. Study 4: Interaction between exposure time and gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741.g005
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 12 / 16
tracking techniques, which allows for an examination of respondents’ dwell time toward dif-
ferent face characteristic [16].
Contrary to our expectations, our results revealed that if exposed to mixed gender faces
women do not significantly outperform men under long exposure time (vs. short) conditions.
Albeit that women score, on average, higher than men do in all three studies (i.e., studies 1–3).
In contrast, when only exposed to same gender faces, both in the repeated and in the new
faces’ groups, women clearly outperform men regardless the length of the exposure time
(study 4). This result substantiates previous face recognition research by adding nuance sug-
gesting that women are more same gender focused and as such more experienced in perceiving
and encoding same gender faces than men [2,34].
In short, our findings clearly suggest that it is essential that face recognition research con-
siders both the length of exposure time and gender distribution of exposed faces when study-
ing the relationship between gender and face recognition performance. This enables us to
acquire more insight into the effectiveness females versus males face recognition processing as
being a function of exposure time. It substantiates insight into exposure time as an important
contingency of the effectiveness of gender-specific face recognition processing.
In this study, the test images shown were the same identical images of those people that
were shown at encoding. This is an important distinction as recognizing a previously-seen
image is not the same as recognizing a previously-seen face or person. As argued by Burton
[48], it is always easier to recognize a picture than to recognize a face. A distinction should also
be made between familiar and unfamiliar face images, with the latter used in this study. While
familiar face recognition is likely to be robust to changes in image, unfamiliar face recognition
is bound more closely to the visual properties of the particular image individuals are viewing
[49]. For these reasons, an important question for future research therefore concerns the
extent to which the results obtained in this study are robust to changes in image.
Gender, gender distribution of exposed faces, and exposure time are not the only factors
that may influence face recognition. Evidence suggests that other personal factors such as age
[30]; genetic heritage [50]; prosopagnosia (face blindness) [51,52]; general motivation for per-
ceiving faces [53]; experience in face recognition [54]; and preferences for processing of differ-
ent face parts (e.g., eyes, nose, and mouth) [9,55] may also affect individuals’ face recognition
abilities.
The controls imposed by the experimental settings of these studies, though necessary to iso-
late the effects of exposure time, may arise differently in actual face exposure settings. For
example, if face exposures are taking place when the consumer is in a group setting, the poten-
tial influence of other people may distort the influence of exposure time on the ability to recog-
nize faces. In the present research the face images were exposed to participants without
manipulating the emotional appearance of the exposed faces (e.g., do they look happy, do they
look sad, do they look aroused, etc.) and without showing any other parts of the body. Hence,
they are many avenues for future research wishing to examine individuals’ face recognition
ability in additional and/or other settings than the ones used in the current study.
The context of the importance of facial recognition needs to be considered when relying on
prior exposure for insights. Recent developments using Artificial Intelligence (AI) for facial
recognition suggest that low-resolution face images are also very hard to recognize and that
this is one of the main obstacles of face recognition in surveillance systems [56]. So far AI has
not been compared to the accuracy of female versus male human counterparts in various time
exposures. This would be an interesting study of comparison, given that the world is investing
so much in AI and people are worried about losing their jobs to AI.
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 13 / 16
Conclusion
This study examined how the interaction of exposure time with gender and with gender distri-
bution of exposed faces affects an individual’s face recognition performance. Based on a set of
four experimental studies several results were obtained. We found that women show a
decrease in face recognition ability due to a lower exposure time. However, we also found that
when exposure time is short (vs. long) women recognize a larger proportion of same gender
faces and also recognize a larger proportion of same gender faces as compared with the pro-
portion of same gender faces recognized by men. Finally, it was shown that when individuals
are only exposed to same gender faces, women recognize more faces than men irrespective of
exposure time.
Acknowledgments
The face images used in this study were a courtesy of Michael J. Tarr, Carnegie Mellon Univer-
sity, http://www.tarrlab.org/ No changes were made to the face images.
Author Contributions
Formal analysis: Torben Hansen.
Writing – original draft: Torben Hansen, Judith Zaichkowsky, Ad de Jong.
References
1. Rehnman J, Herlitz A. Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica. 2007; 124
(3):344–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.04.004 PMID: 16764811
2. Herlitz A, Love
´n J. Sex differences and the own-gender bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic review.
Visual Cognition. 2013; 21(9–10):1306–36.
3. Taubert J, Apthorp D, Aagten-Murphy D, Alais D. (2011). The role of holistic processing in face percep-
tion: Evidence from the face inversion effect. Vision Research. 2011; 51(11):1273–78. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.002 PMID: 21496463
4. Laughery KR, Alexander JF, Lane AB. Recognition of Human Faces: Effects of Target Exposure Time,
Target Position, Pose Position, and Type of Photograph. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1971; 55
(5):477–83.
5. Hehman E, Sutherland CAM, Flake JK, Slepian ML. The Unique Contributions of Perceiver and Target
Characteristics in Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017; 113(4):513–
29. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000090 PMID: 28481616
6. Sporer SL. Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology. Psychol-
ogy, Public Policy, and Law. 2001; 7(1):36–97.
7. Verosky SC, Porter J., Martinex JE, Todorov A. Robust Effects of Affective Person Learning on Evalua-
tion of Faces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2018; 114(4):516–28. https://doi.org/10.
1037/pspa0000109 PMID: 29620399
8. Rule NO, Ivcevic Z, Krendl AC, Ambady N. Accuracy and Consensus in Judgments of Trustworthiness
from Faces: Behavioral and Neural Correlates. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 2013; 104
(3):409–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031050 PMID: 23276271
9. Wang R, Li J, Fang H, Tian M, Liu J. Individual Differences in Holistic Processing Predict Face Recogni-
tion Ability. Psychological Science. 2012; 23(2):169–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420575
PMID: 22222218
10. Russell R, Duchaine B, Nakayama K. Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition
ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2009; 16(2): 252–57. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.252
PMID: 19293090
11. Palmer MA, Brewer N, Horry R. Understanding gender bias in face recognition: Effects of divided atten-
tion at encoding. Acta Psychologica. 2013; 142(3): 362–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.
009 PMID: 23422290
12. Broadbent DE. Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press. 1958.
13. Pashler HE. The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1998.
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 14 / 16
14. Sommer W, Hildebrandt A, Kunina-Habenicht O, Schacht A, Wilhelm O. Sex differences in face cogni-
tion. Acta Psychologica. 2013; 142(1):62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.001 PMID:
23232336
15. Love
´n J, Herlitz A, Rehnman J. Women’s own-gender bias in face recognition memory: The role of
attention at encoding. Experimental Psychology. 2011; 58(4):333–40. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-
3169/a000100 PMID: 21310695
16. Hall JK, Hutton SB, Morgan MJ. Sex differences in scanning faces: Does attention to the eyes explain
female superiority in facial expression. Cognition and Emotion. 2010; 24(4):629–37.
17. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social cognition ( 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill; 1991.
18. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning. The conjunction fallacy in probability
judgment. Psychological Review. 1983; 90(4):293–315.
19. Epstein S. The unconscious, the preconscious and the self-concept. In Suls J and Greenwald (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983; 2. 219–47.
20. Guillem F, Mograss M. Gender differences in memory processing: Evidence from event-related poten-
tials to faces. Brain and Cognition. 2005; 57(1):84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.026
PMID: 15629219
21. McGivern RF, Huston JP, Byrd D, King T, Siegle GJ, Reilly J. (1997). Sex differences in visual recogni-
tion memory: Support for a sex-related difference in attention in adults and children. Brain & Cognition.
1997; 34(3):323–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1997.0872 PMID: 9292185
22. Meyers-Levy J, Tybout AM. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer
Research. 1989; 16(1):39–54.
23. Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. Exploring differences in males and females processing strategies.
Journal of Consumer Research. 1991; 18(1):63–70.
24. Jones DC. Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to models and peers
among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles. 2001; 45(9–10):645–64.
25. Palazzo G, Krings F, Hoffrage U. Ethical Blindness. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012; 109(3):323–38.
26. McIntyre AH, Hancock PJB, Frowd CD, Langton SRH. (2016). Holistic Face Processing Can Inhibit
Recognition of Facial Composites. Law and Human Behavior. 2016; 40(2):128–35. https://doi.org/10.
1037/lhb0000160 PMID: 26436334
27. Gosselin F, Schyns PG. Bubbles: A technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks.
Vision Research. 2001; 41: 2261"2271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00097-9 PMID:
11448718
28. Haig ND. How faces differ: A new comparative technique. Perception. 1985; 14: 601"615. https://doi.
org/10.1068/p140601 PMID: 3836392
29. Haig ND. Investigating face recognition with an image processing computer. In Ellis HD, Jeeves MA,
Newcombe F, Young AW. (Eds.), Aspects of face processing. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof; 1986:410–
25.
30. Anastasi JS, Rhodes MG. An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review. 2005; 12(6):1043–47. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206441 PMID: 16615326
31. Perfect TJ, Harris LJ. Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity
blending? Memory & Cognition. 2003; 31(4):570–80. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196098 PMID:
12872873
32. Hugenberg K, Young SG, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF. The categorization individuation model: An integra-
tive account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review. 2010; 117(4):1168–87. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0020463 PMID: 20822290
33. Lewin C, Herlitz A. Sex differences in face recognition—Women’s faces make the difference. Brain and
Cognition. 2002; 50(1):121–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2626(02)00016-7 PMID: 12372357
34. Rehnman J., Herlitz A. Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex and own-ethnicity
bias. Memory. 2006; 14(3):289–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210500233581 PMID: 16574585
35. Wright DB, Sladden B. An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psycho-
logica. 2003; 114(1):101–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(03)00052-0 PMID: 12927345
36. Iyer ES. Unplanned Purchasing: Knowledge of Shopping Environment and Time Pressure. Journal of
Retailing. 1989; 65(1):40–57.
37. Bogacz R, Wagenmakers E-J, Forstmann B, Nieuwenhuis S. The neural basis of the speed–accuracy
tradeoff. Trends in Neurosciences. 2010; 33(1):10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.09.002
PMID: 19819033
38. He
´roux L, Laroche M, McGown KL. Consumer Product Label Information Processing: An Experiment
Involving Time Pressure and Distraction. Journal of Economic Psychology. 1988; 9:195–214.
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 15 / 16
39. Nisbett RE., Ross L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 1980.
40. Venkatesh V, Morris MG. Why Don’t Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence,
and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior. MIS Quarterly. 2000; 24(1):115–39.
41. Tarr, MJ. Tarrlab Stimuli: The Face-Place Face Database Project: http://face-place.org/
42. Suri R, Monroe KB. The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers’ Judgements of Prices and Prod-
ucts. Journal of Consumer Research. 2003; 30(June):92–104.
43. Benson L., Beach LR. The effects of time constraints on the pre-choice screening of decision options.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1996: 67: 222–28.
44. Huber O, Kunz U. Time pressure in risky decision-making: effect on risk defusing. Psychology Science.
2007: 49(4): 415–26.
45. Yang Y, Green SB. Coefficient Alpha: A Reliability Coefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of Psychoe-
ducational Assessment. 2011: 29(4) 377–92.
46. Bateman CR, Valentine SR. Investigating the Effects of Gender on Consumers’ Moral Philosophies and
Ethical Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 95(3):393–414.
47. Serrien DJ, Ivry RB, Swinnen SP. Dynamics of hemispheric specialization and integration in the context
of motor control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2006; 7(February):160–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nrn1849 PMID: 16429125
48. Burton AM. Why has research in face recognition progressed so slowly? The importance of variability.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2013: 66(8):1467–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17470218.2013.800125 PMID: 23742022
49. Burton AM, Robin SS, Kramer KL, Ritchie RJ. Identity From Variation: Representations of Faces
Derived From Multiple Instances, Cognitive Science. 2016; 40:202–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.
12231 PMID: 25824013
50. Zhu Q, Song Y, Hu S, Li X, Tian M, Zhen Z, et al. Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face per-
ception. Current Biology. 2010; 20(2):137–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.067 PMID:
20060296
51. Busigny T, Rossion B. Holistic processing impairment can be restricted to faces in acquired prosopag-
nosia: Evidence from the global/local Navon effect. Journal of Neuropsychology. 2011; 5(1):1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1348/174866410X500116 PMID: 21366884
52. Ramon M, Busigny T, Rossion B. Impaired holistic processing of unfamiliar individual faces in acquired
prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia. 2010; 48(4):933–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.
2009.11.014 PMID: 19944710
53. Rossion B. The composite face illusion: A whole window into our understanding of holistic face percep-
tion. Visual Cognition. 2013; 21(2):139–253.
54. Mondloch CJ, Pathman T, Maurer D, Le Grand R, de Schonen S. The composite face effect in six-year-
old children: Evidence of adult-like holistic face processing. Visual Cognition. 2007; 15(5):564–77.
55. Rotshtein P, Geng JJ, Driver J, Dolan RJ. Role of features and second-order spatial relations in face dis-
crimination, face recognition, and individual face skills: Behavioral and functional magnetic resonance
imaging data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2007; 19(9):1435–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.
2007.19.9.1435 PMID: 17714006
56. Haghighat, M, Abdel-Mottaleb, M. Low Resolution Face Recognition in Surveillance Systems Using Dis-
criminant Correlation Analysis. 12th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Rec-
ognition (FG 2017). 2017:912–17.
PLOS ONE
Gender, time, and face recognition
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257741 October 28, 2021 16 / 16
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
