ArticleScientific reports2022
Covariation in the recognition of own-race and other-race faces argues against the role of group bias in the other race effect.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facial emotion recognition function and white matter microstructural alterations in drug-naive, comorbidity-free autism.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Unraveling other-race face perception with GAN-based image reconstruction.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- A Regional Analysis of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives in Plastic Surgery Residency Programs.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- No evidence for an other-race effect in dominance and trustworthy judgements from faces.Perception · 2024Article
- Distinct patterns of neural response to faces from different races in humans and deep networks.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A dominant theory of the other race effect (ORE) is that group-bias causes us to process own-race and other-race faces using different cognitive processes. To test this theory, we measured individual differences across two face recognition tasks. Our predictions were that the magnitude and pattern of performance on own-race faces would not predict performance on other-race faces and that participants would take more time with own-race faces. In a face matching task, we found that participants were more accurate with own-race faces compared to other-race faces. However, performance on own-race faces was highly correlated with performance on other-race faces. In a face sorting task, participants made fewer piles and fewer errors (i.e. higher accuracy) with own-race faces compared to other-race faces. However, we again found that performance on own-race faces was highly correlated with performance on other-race faces. The covariation in performance between own-race and other-race faces suggests that they engage similar perceptual processes. Finally, we found that participants did not spend more time on tasks involving own-race faces suggesting that different levels of motivation do not explain the ORE. Together, these findings argue against the idea that group bias leads to different perceptual processing of own-race and other-race faces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.