Although the phrase “they all look alike to me” is widely known and used as
a joke
(Goldstein & Chance, 1985) the implications that the phrase yields may not
be as widely
understood as they should be. In the criminal justice system, eyewitness
identifications can play a
major role in the decisions made by jurors even though it has been shown that
jurors have little
awareness of factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts
(Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter,
1990). One such factor is identifications made by people identifying someone of
a different race,
(when describing race as Caucasian, of African descent, of Asian descent, or
Latino),
which can be referred to as other-race identification or other-race recognition
(Lavrakas, Buri, &
Mayzner, 1976). If the phrase “they all look alike to me”, which states that
people of another
group appear homogenous, is true for most people then it is possible that
other-race
identifications should be considered less reliable than within-race
identifications. It has in fact
been shown that people are more accurate at identifying others of their own
race than at
identifying others of a different race (Penrod, Shapiro 1986). Since it has
been
established that the other-race recognition is not always as accurate as
within-race recognition,
finding the cause for this effect is important. One possible cause is the
quantity of experience a
person has with another race. People are less accurate at identifying faces of
a different racial
group than at identifying faces of their own racial group because they have
less experience with
the other race. We would expect that as the amount of experience a person has
with a different
racial group decreases the less accurate they will be at identifying faces of
that race. It would also
be expected that if you raise someone’s level of experience with a different
racial group, possibly
through training, the ability to identify faces in that racial group should
increase.
The amount of experience a person has with another racial group should
determine how
accurate they will be at identifying people of that race. Those who report
having large amounts
of contact with another race should show better accuracy in identifying people
of that race than
those reporting small amounts of contact with the other race. In a study done
by John Brigham
and Anne Maass, 64 white and 9 black 17-60 year old clerks were asked to
identify from photo
lineups customers who had been in their store earlier. Although the clerks
showed little own-race
bias and were correct less than half the time, the white clerk’s ability to
identify the black
customers was substantially related to the amount of self-reported cross-racial
experience they
had. But the black clerks didn’t show the same relation. It could be possible
that the previous
experience that the white store clerks had with black people may have been
positive or negative
experiences. These experiences may have caused them to pay greater attention to
black
customers. For example, if the store clerk was robbed by a black customer, he
may have a
prejudice against them and now watches them more closely. Here, it is not just
the quantity of
experience someone has with another race that can affect accuracy of
identification, it is also the
quality. To judge whether the quality of the experience may have affected the
accuracy, a
structured survey can be given to the store clerks which asks them specific
questions on what type
of contact they have had with the other race, not just how much. In another
study of the effects
of experience on the accuracy of face recognition, Paul Lavrakas, John Buri and
Mark Mayzner
tested the ability of white subjects to identify black faces. Both quantity and
quality of experience
are considered. To measure these, subjects were asked for their familiarity
with blacks
(quantitative experience) and their current number of black friends
(qualitative experience). They
found that the quality of the white subjects experience with black people was
more important
than the quantity. It was also found that having black friends was more
positively related to the
recognition of black faces than having grown up in a integrated neighborhood.
But, it is possible
that the whites who currently have black friends are more likely to have
positive attitudes about
blacks. This positive attitude could either lead to them coming into greater
amounts of contact
with other black people, or it could be the positive attitude itself that aids
them in the testing
process. By having black friends, these white subjects may have come into as
much contact with
blacks as those who were raised in integrated neighborhoods. Also, a large
proportion of the
subjects with black friends also may have had contact with blacks while growing
up. While the
white subjects, who were raised in integrated neighborhoods and currently have
either
zero or few black friends, may be more likely to have negative attitudes
towards blacks which
could cause them to perform poorly even though they have a large amount of
experience with
blacks. It is also possible that if after growing up in an integrated
neighborhood, the reason that
certain white subjects don’t have black friends is because they chose to
segregate themselves from
blacks and therefore never actually gained the experience they would be
expected to have. If the
subjects are going to fill out a questionnaire asking about their experience with
blacks why not
also ask about their attitudes towards blacks to see if it is affecting the
results.
It may be possible that it is a third factor affecting the other-race
recognition testing.
Perhaps it is a increase in experience that decreases the belief in out-group
homogeneity. The
more experience the white store clerks had with blacks the less they believed
they were all the
same, which increased their ability to identify them. One way to test this
would be to have
subjects place faces in either a white, black or neither category, with a given
prototype for both
races. Whites should show a inclination to group all black variations together
if they are affected
by out group homogeneity. Another possible third mechanism is that it is different
facial features
that different races have that are unfamiliar and hard to distinguish. But
research shows that no
racial group can be characterized as more or less physically homogeneous than
others (Goldstein
& Chance, 1976). Nevertheless, a possible way to test this would be to test
for other-race
recognition patterns using pictures of faces that have been tinted or
lightened, or altered pictures
that give, for example, a white face eyes that are more typically associated
with Asian faces.
If experience increases the ability to recognize other race faces, then people
from an
integrated neighborhood should be more accurate in other-race recognition than
people from a
segregated neighborhood. One study found that white children from a segregated
neighborhood
showed a higher differential race recognition than children from an integrated
neighborhood
(Cross, Cross, & Daly, 1971). Another study of children from integrated
schools showed small
own-race bias, but the findings were not entirely consistent. It could be that
the children were not
fully developed in their ability to identify any particular race better than
another. More years of
experience might yield a greater result. Also, tests could be done on the
ability of people to
recognize other race faces over a period of time as an area becomes more and
more integrated. It
should show that as integration increases the ability to recognize other-race
faces also increases.
If it were truly the case that experience with a particular race was the cause
of the differential
recognition, than a white child raised in a black home should recognize black
faces better than
white faces and vice versa. Unfortunately I was unable to find these studies.
To increase the level of experience a subject has with a racial group, training
can be done,
which should increase the ability to identify faces in that racial group. A
study done by Alvin
Goldstein and June Chance took subjects who initially showed poor ability to
remember Japanese
faces. Some were intensively trained and a control group received no training.
The trained
subjects showed marked improvement on tests with sets of new Japanese faces.
Here, after
gaining experience in Japanese faces, the subjects increased their ability to
identify faces in that
racial group. Though the results are mostly straightforward in this study, it
should be noted that
only the ability to identify Japanese faces was tested. It cannot be concluded
that due to
experience with an unfamiliar race, the subject is now familiar with that race.
The subjects may
actually have just been trained to become better at the test, or simply better
at identifying faces
of any race based on an increased awareness of facial features. I would suggest
also testing the
subjects on a different racial group, other than their own, but giving them no
training in that
group. If their ability to identify that group also rose then it is the task
itself that the subjects
improved upon.
Although not all of the evidence points to experience as the cause of the
other-race effect
on face recognition, it is clear that experience at least some type of role in
the ability of people to
identify others of a different race. Also, future experiments would benefit
from a more clear and
concise measure of experience, whether it is quantity or quality, to increase
the validity of the
tests. Future work should also examine whether white children raised in black
homes are better at
identifying black faces, as we would expect them to if experience was the cause
of the other-race
effect. Continued research in the subject would benefit the criminal justice
system in its
understanding of the reliability of eyewitnesses because although much of the
data supports the
thesis the presence of possible alternative explanations prevents the drawing
of a firm conclusion.
REFERENCES
Brigham, John C., & Malpass Roy S., (1985) The role of Experience and
Contact in the Recognition of Faces Of Own- and Other-Race Persons. Journal of
Social Issues, 41, 139-155.
Lavrackas, Paul J., Buri John R., & Mayzner Mark S., (1976) A Perspective
on the Recognition of Other-Race Faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 20,
475-481.
Shepherd, John, Deregowski, Jan B., & Ellis, Hadyn D., (1974) A
Cross-Cultural Study of Recognition Memory For Faces. International Journal of
Psychology, 9, 205-211.
Goldstein, Alvin G., & Chance, June, (1985) Effects of Training on Japanese
Face Recognition: Reduction of the Other-Race Effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 23, 211-214.
Anthony, Tara, Copper, Carolyn, & Mullen, Brian, (1992) Cross-Racial Facial
Identification: A Social Cognitive Integration. PSPB, 18, 296-301.
Shapiro, Peter N., Penrod, Steven D., (1986) Meta-Analysis of Facial Identification
Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, Steven D., (1990) Juror Sensitivity to to Eyewitness
Identification Evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-192.