Talk:Cross-race effect

Untitled

I removed the external link. It is an advertisment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.23.172 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MCJones20. Peer reviewers: Asmaley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction

Both the lead and Holistic and Featural sections of this article suggest that the Cross-race effect occurs when individuals use holistic processing for own-race faces but featural processing for other-race faces (and that this is because holistic processing requires experience, which individuals often have with own-race faces more than other-race faces). However the Way to reduce Cross-Race effect section seems to completely reverse this, describing a study in which individuals are told that holistic processing "according to stereotypes" is the cause of the cross-race effect and focusing on features is its (partial)solution. The citation for the Way to reduce Cross-Race effect section might be worth a look for anybody who has access to it, the section bandies the term "stereotype" around a lot without explaining how it relates to the cross-race effect or what its specific definition is in the context.--90.199.141.31 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible Updates

For my Cognitive Psychology class, my partner and I would like to use review of a study by Meissner and Brigham to add information to the identification bias section of this page about the own race bias and memory. According to this article recent studies have been unable to find a relationship between racial attitudes and memory of other race faces. However, another factor that is relevant to recognition of other race faces is the amount of interracial contact. Studies show that people who have less contact with other race members have more prejudiced attitudes. This fact can be added to the history, Immersion Vs. Upbringing, or how to reduce the CRE section of the cross race wikipedia page to show why the cross race effect occurs.

Also, another study by Brigham et al. can add more to the identification bias section on how race can influence eyewitness memory. This review can also be used to add a new section to the Wikipedia page titled: The Cross Race Effect Across Racial Groups. Under this title I can discuss the cross race effect among African Americans, Whites, Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic groups. In addition, this study could be used to make another section to show the similarities and differences between the cross race effect on adults and children.

A meta analysis by Bothwell et al shows that there is considerable consistency across studies indicated that memory of own race faces are superior to other race faces. This review can be used to add more information to different sections of the cross race Wikipedia page.

Finally, a review article by Young et al. can be used to add more to the effects on social cognition part of this wikipedia page. By using this source I can add how a combination of both perceptual expertise and social cognitive frameworks can provide an opportunity for theoretical synthesis and advancement not afforded by independent expertise or social cognitive models.

Anneo1994 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Anneo1994

Hi Anneo and welcome! From your description, I cannot see if the sources you mention are WP:primary sources or not - however, "a study by Abshire" very much sounds like a primary source. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, make sure you use secondary sources! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 12:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anneo: Now that the full ref has been added it is clear that it is not adequate since it is a primary source. Have you tried to go to pubmed and click "related reviews" of that specific article? You may find some interesting sources.--Garrondo (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anneo: All the sources you have just added are primary ones (experiments) and therefore inadequate for wikipedia in most cases. I recommend you take a look to what is considered adequate sources in WP:MEDRS as proposed above. Additionally your campus embassador has provided you with some interesting secondary sources (A metaanalysis and a review chapter) below. The article would improve a lot more if you make use of them. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources now have been very much improved. Congratulations!!! I believe that the article would greatly benefit from your work. Only as a comment: it probably would have been better to leave initial proposals as they were and modify your comments in new sections so people could understand "the dialogue". While in articles modification of previous editions is how wikipedia improves in talk pages is not really common to modify comments since then people are unable to follow what has happened.--Garrondo (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I commented in your talk page I have taken the liberty of changing the format of your last citation using the DOI. I have done it as an example that you should probably follow with the other sources, since it has several advantages.--Garrondo (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A dissertation is (probably) not a reliable source. On a side note answer to other comments either in an article talk page or in your personal talk page is usually good practice. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested

• Meissner, Christian A. (1 January 2001). "Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 7 (1): 3–35. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) -> most recent metanalysis
• Brigham, J. C., Bennett, L. B., Meissner, C. A., & Mitchell, T. L. (2007). The influence of race on eyewitness memory. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology. Volume II: Memory for people (pp. 257-281). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Smallman12q (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In the section titled: "Race-feature theory", it states that "In his 1996 study, researchers noticed that when looking at ethnicity...", however, there is no mention of who "his" is referring to. Presumably this is Levin (1996) (see citation 16) but I'm not sure. Also, 'his" and "researchers" doesn't make sense in that sentence unless he is studying the researchers (which doesn't seem to be the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.74.54 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing (again...)

While your additions sound interesting and are overall probably an improvement over what was already in the article it is really a pity that only one of your references added is a review.

This source "Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and "trickle down" among Black and non-Black employees" is primary study.

I have commented repeatedly this in most of your class-mates article's talk pages and also this one (and even in the talk page of the class project)... You might find useful to have in your watchpage all the articles of your companions. Why don't you search for high quality secondary sources instead of using sub-optimal sources that should probably be eliminated in the future? The article needs secondary references instead of primary articles?

Reason for using reviews is because wiki is an encyclopedia, and use of secondary sources is the best way to remain neutral in an article. Bests. If you have any doubts feel free to ask here or in my talk page...

--Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Last Update to Cross Race Effect Page

March 21st 2013

Moved

I am moving two big sections here describing recent primary research since they actually do not add anything to the article. First one is more or less the same as is stated in the sentence before, whereas second one goes into wayyyy too much detail in explaining the design of an article to finally not conclude anything useful (This study supported the idea of cross-race effect, since the participants all showed superior identification with the faces of people of the same race.)

I did not eliminate them directly since they are quite long and might be helpful in the future for future improvements in the article.--Garrondo (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In August 2009, the Journal of Current Biology reported on experiments showing that, for example, Chinese people do not look at the mouth of a person to determine his emotion. In Western cultures, however, anger and sadness is often displayed via the shape of the mouth. This shows how a person can feel they cannot "read" the faces of other cultures. Inner-brain processes also originally hinder the correct decoding and storage of faces of other races. That is why one often has the feeling that people of other races "all look alike". Over time these perceptional processes change and adapt and the Cross-Race-Effect diminishes.

Another study that supports cross-race identification occurs in inner-brain processes is a study done by Goldinger, He, and Papesh in 2009. Forty Caucasian students from Arizona State University participated in the study. These participants were presented with fifty-two pictures. There were 26 Caucasian faces and 26 Japanese faces in these pictures. The faces were approximately the same size as real faces when they were displayed on a monitor. The eye movements of the participants were then monitored as they viewed the pictures. A chin rest maintained the participants’ viewing angle, and the path of both eyes was continuously monitored throughout the entirety of the study. This study supported the idea of cross-race effect, since the participants all showed superior identification with the faces of people of the same race.

Similarly I am moving here the complete "empirical findings" section. This section was no more than an overly specific description of the methods sections of cherry-picked primary articles that had no clear indication of notability. Wikipedia articles are not a repository of article abstracts on a theme. I move it since the section may serve to give ideas for future improvements of the article through the use of secondary sources.--Garrondo (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

===General support===

A study performed by Arbuthnott, Jackie, Marcon, Meissner, and Pfeifer in 2008 used 29 Caucasian participants and 24 Native American participants. The Caucasian participants were all students from the University of Regina whereas the Native American participants were recruited from Northlands College. Participants were placed in front of a computer and were presented with six target faces of one race, either Caucasian or First Nations. The faces were all viewed for three seconds each. Immediately after the study phase followed a distractor phase in which the participants were told to change “one phrase (family outing) into a related phase (amusement park)”. Results found that even with the distractor phase, there still remained evidence for the cross race effect.

In a study done by Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin, and Moore and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, there were 186 participants (62 kindergarteners, 62 third-graders, and 62 young adults. Half of the participants in each age group were white; half were black, and they were all recruited from similar socioeconomic circumstances. The study consisted of a presentation phase followed by a recognition phase. After the recognition phase the researchers found that same-race identification was more accurate, and the cross-race effect remained consistent throughout the age groups.

===Immersion vs. Upbringing=== Another study that provides evidence for the increase in accuracy of emotion recognition for cross-race situations was conducted by Elfenbein and Ambady. Elfenbein and Ambady gathered a group of Non-Asian American participants, Chinese American participants, Chinese participants that have been in America for some time, and Chinese participants living in China. They then conducted a similar assessment as the study previously mentioned in which the participants were asked to identify the emotion portrayed in various faces of these four groups of people. Results showed that each “in-group” was better at detecting emotions of other “in-group” members with the exception of Chinese participants who had been living in the U.S. These participants were better at identifying the faces of non-Asian Americans than Chinese faces. Therefore, familiarity and belonging in an “in-group” can result not only from where people are from, but also by being immersed in a different setting for a short amount of time.

===Holistic and Featural=== In another study by Tanak et al., the researchers tested 21 Caucasian undergraduates and 21 Asian undergraduates both recruited from places deemed primarily Caucasian, holistic and featural methods of processing for recognition. The Caucasian participants demonstrated holistic processing for the recognition of Caucasian faces and featural processing for recognition of unfamiliar Asian faces. Given that participants in this study had extensive exposure to members of their own race, these findings indicate that experience of own-race faces promotes holistic processing. Consistent with the experience claim, Asian participants who had frequent interactions with Caucasian people demonstrated comparable levels of holistic recognition for Caucasian faces as they did for Asian faces. The obtained results are compatible with the account that experience is important for holistic face recognition.

References

Copyright infrigement

While trying to read the article and do some clean up as a previous stage to given some output to students the tone of the social effects section made ring some alert bells. I pasted full paragraphs into google and every time the search gave me as the second result the cited article. Full sentences have been copied from it, and at most slightly refractored. This is a clear copyright infrigement, and I have precuatiously eliminated all content from the Young reference. I will notify editors adding content, their teacher, and the education noticeboard.--Garrondo (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have found similar problems in the section "The Cross Race Effect Across Ethnic Groups", which was added by the same editors than the one commented above. I have eliminated the full section.--Garrondo (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I have found so many copyright problems I believe all contributions by students in this article are tainted. I have finally reverted to previous state preserving changes made in the last hours to the other sections by myself.--Garrondo (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

About the 86 convenience store clerks

I'm tagging this bit with a verification needed. Did all 86 clerks say that "they all look alike" ? I would be surprised if some didn't just pick one and be wrong, rather than refuse to pick one and say something potentially embarrassing like that. It's an offline source so I couldn't verify it myself. If someone in the future has access to this source, please make sure that what is in the article is correct, thanks. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jbmurray for getting to this so quickly! PraetorianFury (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Confusing

I am an expert in the field of face recognition and I found this whole entry very confusing. I think that the whole article needs to be re-written breaking it done into evidence and theories. PsychMan 09:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelBLewis72 (talk • contribs)

facial recognition gestalt

In the article about prosopagnosia it talks about specific parts of the brain that use the components of someone's face to form a whole, a gestalt. And that other races fall outside this part of the brain's ability to form a gestalt. I think the concept of gestalt is more specific, and useful, than talking about holistic recognition, although it means the same thing, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.252.58 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 22 (Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology)

This citation is extremely problematic.

This is a publication that undergoes yearly revision, and is a multi-volume set. I have no idea, from the citation provided, which volume or version the citations come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxdsg (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Diversity of Certain Facial Features Among the Races

I've been doing a bit of reading on this subject and I have yet to see attention brought to the variations in hair color and type or eye color. Caucasian hair morphology can range from tight curls to thin and downy, while hair color can be jet black to almost white. Caucasian eye colors also exist in pretty much any known human pigment. Heck, Caucasian skin tone can vary from almost pure white with a blue tinge to almost the darkest brown observed in humans. I have yet to observe nearly this level of variance of these traits in any other race. Surely this has some bearing on people's perceived differences in faces of any given race, whetehr it be their own or another. 2600:1700:5DD0:60A0:E0AA:13A4:1D7E:D24F (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Article Introduction

Hey, I've been evaluating the article and I feel as if the introductory sentence doesn't explain the full cross-race effect in that it says "familiar" without indicating what familiar means in this context (of familiar race or origin). The lead also focuses a lot on a particular study. I think that parts of the lead better fit under empirical findings rather than the introduction. I also don't think "All Asians look the same?" is necessary or objective. Thoughts?MCJones20 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Edit

Hello! I'm commenting again to say that I plan on editing the article to fix some issues I noticed before as well as the section regarding effects on eyewitness testimony. Some of the references I plan to use is on my user talk page.MCJones20 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: The proposal I have for the changes I am making is within my sandbox! Thank youMCJones20 (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from Review

Hello! I wanted to provide some commentary and feedback regarding the article. I really like how it utilizes a well-rounded lens in tackling this topic by addressing synonymous theories and provided a logical framework to understand both scholarly and real-world aspects of cross-race effect. In particular, the writing style, which was both rich in information and easy to understand, was a highlight, in addition to the illustrations incorporated. Given that this is a niche topic within psychology, introducing WikiLinks that direct readers to broader psychological theories may be beneficial in helping them build appropriate context for this subject. Additionally, several sections (History, Theoretical approaches subsections, Economic) rely on a limited number of sources, and several claims within the article itself remain uncited. Broadening the source material and reinforcing claims would ensure that the content of the article reflects the academic community’s consensus on the topic and reduce potential bias. Overall, great job, and good luck with any future edits!Asmaley (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing info from the economic section

Hi all, I decided to remove the original paragraph from the economic section. I cannot find the sources they are using, and it is poorly referenced. Please update if you are able to find the info and proper citation. I added the original paragraph below for reference.

In a globalized world, in which different cultures and races collaborate and negotiate about contracts, licenses, rights and political decisions, one clearly sees the negative impacts of the cross-race effect. Prof. Thomas (Department of Intercultural Communication, Regensburg, Germany) stated that at least 50% of Western-Chinese negotiations fail due to impaired communication. Even signed contracts lead to suboptimal results in 60–70% of the cases. "Trends in Managing Mobility 2007"[44] found that 30% of the failed negotiations could be indirectly traced back to the cross-race effect. Consequences of the cross-race effect include reduced emotional intelligence, negative evaluation of trustworthiness, reduced ability to communicate, lack of empathy and a decreased ability to judge the overall situation of a negotiation.

[44]=ECA International (2007): Trends in Managing Mobility 2007MCJones20 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"All Asians look the same" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All Asians look the same. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#All Asians look the same until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This topic should be titled "Other-Race Effect" rather than "Cross-Race Effect"

Try putting all of the alternative titles given to this wikipedia entry into Google N-gram. You will find that the most commonly used term (latest date 2019), by quite a large amount, is "other-race effect," (8119), followed by "own-race bias," (6435), followed by "cross-race effect," (3298), and then "cross-race bias" (308). [Leading zeros omitted] 2600:1700:3AB0:1010:D0B1:2B4:D7D6:CFF2 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)