Cross-Racial Identification Robert K. Bothwell University of Texas at El Paso John C. Brigham Florida State University Roy S. Malpass State University of New York at Plattsburgh This article reviews theresearch on differentialrecognition for own- versus other-race -- faces. A meta-analysis of 14 samples revealed that the magnitude of the own-race bias issimilarfor both Blackand Whitesubjects, accountingfor about 10% of the variance in recognition accuracy. There is a considerable consistency across studies, indicating that memory for own-race faces is superior to memory for other-race faces. Both Black and White subjects exhibited own-race bias in 79% of the samples reviewed. Over the last decade the literature on psychological factors affecting eyewitness identifications has grown dramatically in size. It has also grown in the demands placed upon it, because theorists have stressed the importance of research that is directly applicable to police lineup techniques and courtroom procedures. An important part of this process is the reexamination of earlier literature, because the field has advanced and the focus of research questions has sharpened. One such areaof reexamination is that of the differential recognition between American Blacks and Whites for faces of their own and of the other race. Legal scholars have expressed concern over an own-race bias in eyewitness identifications for quite some time. Feingold (1914, p. 50) asserted that it is "well known that, other things being equal, individuals of a given race are distinguishable from each other in proportion to ourfamiliarity, to our contact with the race as a whole. Thus, to the uninitiated American, all Asiatics look alike, while to the Asiatic all White men look alike." Most experts in the field of eyewitness memory and about half of potential jurors endorse the belief that cross-racial identifications are less reliable than same-race identifications (Yarmey & Jones, 1983). This presumption is based on the belief in the existence of an own-race bias: that people recognize people of their own race better than people of another race. At the same time, Lindsay and AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to offer our sincere appreciation and thanks to Alvin G. Goldstein and Harmon M. Hosch for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Correspondence should be sent to Robert K. Bothwell, Department of Psychology, Pan American University, Edinburg, TX 78539. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 15 No. 1, March 1989, 19-25 @ 1989 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
20 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Wells (1983) have questioned whether the effect exists at all. Clearly the evidence bears examination. The initial research paradigm employed to investigate own-race bias was the facial-recognition study. Black and White subjects are initially exposed to a set of critical slides of Black and White faces. After a short retention interval, subjects are tested for their ability to recognize the critical slides, using a signal-detection task. The critical slides are randomly distributed among a set of distracter slides. Each subject's task is to respond yes to a critical slide and no to a distracter slide. From the subject's responses to the set of critical and distracter slides, a recognition-ability score is calculated. This score is usually represented as d-prime, an index that gives the subject credit for responding yes to a critical slide but penalizes the subject for responding yes to a distracter slide. Own-race bias exists if d-prime (or recognition ability) is greater for own-race slides than it is for other-race slides. An effect-size statistic can be used to examine the extent of own-race bias among Black and White subjects in a given study. Effect size represents the difference between the d-prime mean for own-race faces and the d-prime mean for other-race faces in standard deviation units. For example, Malpass and Kravitz (1969) presented Black and White psychology students at the University of Illinois with slides of 10 Black faces and 10 White faces. Later, subjects were asked to identify these slides out of a set of 80 slides that included the critical slides, 30 additional White distracters, and 30 additional Black distracters. White subjects exhibited own-race bias. They correctly identified 7.92 of the critical White faces but falsely identified 3.46 of the distracter White faces, resulting in a d-prime of 2.14. They also correctly identified 6.08 of the critical Black faces but falsely identified 4.85 of the distracter Black faces, resulting in a d-prime of 1.18.Own-race bias is implicated by the larger d-prime obtained with own-race faces than with other-race faces. In this case, the effect size is 1.41, indicating that mean d-prime for own-race faces is 1.41 standard deviations greater than mean d-prime for other-race faces. In order to examine the extent of own-race bias across the known set of facial-recognition studies, a meta-analysis was conducted. The analysis was conducted on those studies that exposed both White and Black subjects to slides of White and Black faces. Fourteen different samples from 11 different studies were employed in the analysis. The effect size of the own-race bias was calculated for Black and White subjects in each sample. These effect sizes were then averaged, so that the magnitude of own-race bias among Black and White subjects could be examined. META-ANALYSIS Data Search Two reviews of the research on own-race bias in the facial-recognition literature were utilized (Lindsay & Wells, 1983; Malpass, 1982). The Lindsay
Bothwell et al. / CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION 2 1 and Wells review involved 11 different studies: Brigham and Barkowitz (1978); Chance, Goldstein, and McBride (1975); Cross, Cross, and Daly (1971); Feinman and Entwisle (1976); Galper (1973); Goldstein and Chance (1976); Luce (1974); Malpass (1974); Malpass, Lavigueur, and Weldon (1973); and Shepherd, Deregowski, and Ellis (1974). We obtained copies of all these papers and calculated effect sizes for White and for Black subjects. Studies by Cross et al. (1971), Luce (1974), and Malpass (1974) were not included because not enough data were included in the original manuscript and the raw data were no longer available. The study by Goldstein and Chance (1976) was not included in the analysis because only White subjects were used. Malpass's (1982) review included three studies not included in the Lindsay and Wells (1983) review: Brigham and Williamson (1979), Devine and Malpass (1981, 1985) and Ellis and Deregowski (1981). In addition, we included two studies reported in Barkowitz and Brigham (1982) that were not included in either the Lindsay and Wells or the Malpass review. Three studies (Barkowitz & Brigham, 1982; Ellis & Deregowski, 1981; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969) involved two separate samples. This resulted in the 14 samples listed in Table 1. RESULTS Effect sizes and sample sizes for Black and White subjects for each sample are presented in the upper portion of Table 1. These data were used to calculate the mean effect size (d), the variance of the effect sizes (S^& the variance expected on the basis of sampling error (&), and the standard deviation corrected for sampling error (a/\.), using the formulas given by Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982). These statistics are reported separately for Black and White subjects in the lower portion of Table 1. An effect size of d = 0.00 would indicate that faces of both races were recognized equally well. A positive effect size indicates that own-race faces were recognized better than other-race faces, whereas a negative effect size indicates that other-race faces were recognized better than own-race faces. Both Black subjects (d =.71) and White subjects (d = 59) revealed an overall tendency to recognize own-race faces better than other-race faces. Converting these effect sizes to r, according to the formula: we find that own-race bias accounts for 11% of the variance in recognition ability of Black subjects and 10% of the variance in recognition ability of White subjects. Although the overall mean effect size for Black subjects is statistically equivalent to that of Whites t(26) =.14, a s., the confidence interval for Black
22 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN TABLE 1 Own Versus Other Effect Sizes for Black and White Subjects Sample Size Effect Size Study Black White Black White Barkowitz and Brigham, 1982 (Study 1). Barkowitz and Brigham, 1982 (Study 2) Brigham and Barkowitz, 1978 Brigham and Williamson, 1979 Chance, Goldstein, and McBride, 1975 Devine and Malpass, 1985 Ellis and Deregowski, 1981 (transformed) Ellis and Deregowski, 1981 (untransformed) Feinman and Entwisle, 1976 Galper, 1973 Malpass and Kravitz, 1969 (Illinois) Malpass and Kravitz, 1969 (Howard) Malpass, Lavigueur, and Weldon, 1973 Shepherd, Deregowski, and Ellis, 1974 Note: d=.7087.6848; s:=,3041,0881; (3\ =,0152,0137; erg =.5375,2728. subjects is wider than for Whites and does include zero: C.I. (95%) = (-.34 to 1.76) for Blacks and C.I. (95%) = (.I6 to 1.22) for Whites. Although both groups are quite variable (even after correcting for sampling error), Black ds (ua2 =.29) are significantly more variable than White ds (ua2 =.07), F(14, 14) = <.01. This is due primarily to the data reported for Black subjects by Malpass and Kravitz (1969) and Barkowitz and Brigham (1982, Study l), wherein Blacks performed better on White faces than Black faces. It should be noted that in both of Malpass and Kravitz's (1969) samples (students at Illinois and Howard Universities), a main effect for race of picture was significant: The White stimuli were more easily recognizable. However, the main effect for race of picture occurred only in the first Barkowitz and Brigham study, wherein both Blacks and Whites were superior at recognizing White faces. In their second study,
Bothwell et al. / CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION 23 Barkowitz and Brigham found a crossover interaction and no main effect for race of picture. Both Blacks and Whites exhibited a strong own-race bias. Across the 14 samples, the data from White subjects and Black subjects are quite variable, and in both cases the variation cannot be accounted for by sampling error alone. Sampling error accounts for only 16% of the variance among White ds and even less of the variance among Black ds. The remaining variation could be due to error of measurement, different standard deviations associated with recognition ability, or study artifacts such as differences among stimulus materials, length of the stimulus interval, length of the interstimulus interval, or retention interval. Different stimulus materials, in particular, may contribute to much of the variance in d-primes across studies. Distinctive faces may be easily recognized regardless of race. Samples of stimulus faces that include larger proportions of distinctive faces should yield lower cross-racial effect sizes. Malpass and Kravitz (1969) argued that this was the reason that they did not observe own-race bias in their Illinois and Howard University samples: There was a main effect for race of picture (both Blacks and Whites were superior at recognizing White faces), indicating perhaps that the White stimulus faces were more distinctive and easily recognizable than the Black stimulus faces. DISCUSSION This meta-analysis persuades us to disagree with those who have argued that the data from facial-recognition studies of own-race bias are equivocal and inconsistent. The data indicate that the own-race bias effect is quite consistent, in that it occurs for both Black and White subjects in 79% of the samples considered. The effect occurs with equal magnitude among both Black and White subjects, accounting for 11% of the variance in recognition ability of Black subjects and 10% of the variance in recognition ability of White subjects. Generalizing from facial-recognition studies to eyewitness identifications is problematic (Clifford, 1978). Eyewitness researchers recognize this, and they have begun conducting studies of the own-race bias employing more forensically relevant paradigms (Brigham, Maass, Snyder, & Spaulding, 1982; Platz & Hosch, in press). Both of these studies were conducted in convenience stores. An unusual interaction was staged between a customer who was working with the researchers and the store clerk. For example, the customer paid for a pack of cigarettes with all pennies and asked directions to the airport. Two hours later the clerk was interrogated by a "law intern" working with the researchers who showed the clerk a photographic lineup. Brigham and his colleagues found no support for own-race bias among either Black or White clerks in Tallahassee, Florida. One explanation for this finding might be the high rate of intergroup contact between convenience store clerks and their customers. Blacks represent 25% of the population in Tallahassee. On the other hand, Platz and Hosch found evidence of own-race bias among both Anglo-American and Mexican-American
24 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN convenience store clerks in El Paso, Texas, despite frequent intergroup contact. Mexican-Americans represent 63% of the population in El Paso. Some support for an intergroup-contact hypothesis was revealed by Platz and Hosch: both the Anglo-American and the Mexican-American clerks were particularly likely to misidentify a Black they had never seen before. Blacks represent only 3% of the population in El Paso. Further research using more forensically relevant paradigms is necessary to improve the ecological validity of the literature on the own-race bias. Researchers conducting more forensically relevant research should be particularly attentive to target distinctiveness and attractiveness. Selection of a target who is either very distinctive or very attractive might artificially reduce the cross-racial effect. In addition, more research into the theoretical explanations for the effect is needed (Brigham & Malpass, 1985). The idea that own-race bias is a result of limited intergroup contact has received some support, but better measures of contact are needed. REFERENCES Barkowitz, P., & Brigham, J. C. (1982). Recognition of faces: Own-race bias, incentive, and time delay. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 255-268. Brigham, J. C., & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do "they all look alike?" The effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 306-318. Brigham, J. C., Maass, A,, Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673-681. Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. 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. Brigham, J. C., & Williamson. N. L. (1979). Cross-racial recognition and age: When you're over 60, do they still "all look alike?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 218-222. Chance, J., Goldstein, A. G., & McBride, L. (1975). Differential experience and recognition memory for faces. Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 243-253. Clifford, B. R. (1978). A critique of eyewitness research. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes (Eds.), Practicalaspects of memory (pp. 199-209). London: Academic Press. Cross, J. F., Cross, J., & Daly, J. (1971). Sex, race, age, and beauty as factors in recognition of faces. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 393-396. Devine, P. G., & Malpass, R. S. (1981). Differential face recognition: A less than convincing explanation. Paper presented at the meetings of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia. Devine, P. G., & Malpass, R. S. (1985). Orienting strategies in differential face recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 33-40. Ellis, H. D., & Deregowski, J. B. (1981). Within-race and between-race recognition of transformed and untransformed faces. American Journal of Psychology, 94, 27-35. Feingold, C. A. (1914). The influence of environment on identification of persons and things. Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science, 5. 39-51.
Bothwell et al. / CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION 25 Feinman, S., & Entwisle, D. R. (1976). Children's ability to recognize other children's faces. Child Development, 47, 506-510. Galper, R. E. (1973). Functional race membership and recognition of faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 455-462. Goldstein, A. G., & Chance, J. (1976). Measuring the psychological similarity of faces. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 407-408. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1983). What do we really know about cross-race eyewitness identification? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 219-234). New York: John Wiley. Luce, T. S. (1974, November). Blacks, whites, and yellows: They all look alike to me. Psychology Today, pp. 105-108. Malpass, R. S. (1974). Racial bias in eyewitness identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 42-44. Malpass, R. S. (1982, March). Differentialrecognition for faces of own andother race: A data summary. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Academy of Criminal Justice Science, Louisville. Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition of faces of own and other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330-334. Malpass, R. S., Lavigueur, H., & Weldon, D. E. (1973). Verbaland visual training in face recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 285-292. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (in press). Crossracial/ethnic identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Shepherd, J. W., Deregowski, J. B., & Ellis, H. D. (1974). A cross-cultural study of recognition memory for faces. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 205-21 1. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock& B. R. Clifford(Eds.), Evaluating witnessevidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13-40). New York: John Wiley. Robert K. Bothwell teaches psychology at Pan American University in South Texas. His research focuses on factors associated with eyewitness accuracy. In addition to his work on cross-racial identification, he has been concerned with the effects of arousal on eyewitness memory and the relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. John C. Brigham is Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. His research interests include factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identification and the application of social psychological concepts to legal questions. Roy S. Malpass is Professor of Behavioral Science at SUNY, Platisburgh. His main interests are in cross-cultural psychology and social memory-particularly facial memory and eyewitness identification.