Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of CriminologyVolume 2013 Article ID 745836 6 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013745836

Research ArticleThe Cross-Race Effect Resistant to Instructions

Brian H Bornstein1 Cindy E Laub2 Christian A Meissner3 and Kyle J Susa4

1 Department of Psychology University of Nebraska-Lincoln 335 Burnett Hall Lincoln NE 68588 USA2Department of Psychology Metropolitan State University of Denver Denver CO 80217 USA3Department of Psychology University of Texas at El Paso El Paso TX 79968 USA4Department of Psychology amp Institute of Defense and Security University of Texas at El Paso El Paso TX 79968 USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Brian H Bornstein bbornstein2unledu

Received 30 October 2012 Revised 10 January 2013 Accepted 11 January 2013

Academic Editor Augustine Joseph Kposowa

Copyright copy 2013 Brian H Bornstein et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

The cross-race effect (CRE) is the tendency for eyewitnesses to be better at recognizing members of their own raceethnicity thanmembers of other racesethnicities It manifests in terms of both better discrimination (ie telling apart previously seen from newtargets) and a more conservative response criterion for own-race than for other-race faces The CRE is quite robust and generallyresistant to change Two studies examined the effectiveness of reducing the CRE with special instructions given prior to retrievalAlthough instructions at retrieval did change participantsrsquo response criterionmdashmaking them less likely to identify test faces aspreviously seenmdashthey did not shift their response criterion selectively for other-race faces The findings indirectly support theimportance of encoding processes in producing the CRE

1 Introduction

There are numerous times in our criminal justice systemthat eyewitness testimony can make the difference betweenconviction and acquittal When trials contain eyewitnesstestimony jurors rely on it heavily despite holding some erro-neous beliefs about the factors that make eyewitnesses moreor less accurate [1] Because jurors rely on those beliefs inevaluating eyewitness credibility and making trial judgments[1ndash3] false convictions in eyewitness cases are not uncom-mon Indeed eyewitness misidentifications lead to morewrongful convictions than all other causes combined [4 5]

One common cause of eyewitness error is the cross-raceeffect (CRE also referred to as the own-race bias) which is thetendency to be worse at recognizing individuals from otherracialethnic groups than onersquos own racialethnic group [6ndash8]The bias is quite robust it appears in early infancy [9] hasbeen observed in young children [10] and persists into oldage [11] Despite the robustness of the effect people are notnecessarily aware of it for example Abshire and Bornstein[12] found that fewer than 50 of mock jurors correctlyanswered a question about the CRE although Black partici-pants were more knowledgeable than White participants

The reasons underlying the CRE are not clear There arethree leading classes of explanations for the effect whichfocus on differential experience encoding and retrieval(for review see [7 13]) The experience-based explanationoften referred to as the contact hypothesis emphasizes thedifferential contact that one has with onersquos own versus otherracesThe contact hypothesis posits that the degree of contactwith members of a group (ie quantity and quality) dictatesa personrsquos ability to distinguish among group members [1314] According to this view individuals typically have moreinteractions with their own race than other races resultingin the CRE Despite the intuitive appeal of this explanationand some empirical support (eg [15ndash17]) overall findingsregarding the contact hypothesis are inconsistent and rela-tively weak [8 13 18]

A second class of explanations focuses on the role thatencoding operations play in the CRE (eg [17 19ndash21])Some researchers (eg [13]) have suggested that when weobserve someone of our own race or ingroup we encodefacial features differentlymdashin greater depth with attention todifferent features or bothmdashthan when observing someoneof a different race Because people typically have more expe-rience with own-race members they develop heuristics for

2 Journal of Criminology

making useful distinctions between facesmdashsuch as attendingto distinguishing facial featuresmdashthatmay not be useful whenapplied to members of a different race [22 23] Indeed thereis evidence that individuals attend to different facial featuresas a function of a target facersquos race [24 25] or process own-race faces more holistically [26] This differential encodingreflects at least in part a tendency to perceive members ofoutgroups as more homogeneous than members of ingroups[20]Hugenberg and colleagues [20 27] have found thatwhenperceivers aremade aware prior to encoding of their tendencyto engage in categorical thinking about outgroup membersthey pay more attention to outgroup membersrsquo unique traitsand characteristicsmdashthereby reducing the CRE

The third and final class of explanations deals withretrieval-based processes Research evidence indicates thatthe CRE reflects different processes and decision strategiesoccurring at the time of retrieval More specifically peoplerely more on recollection processes as opposed to familiarityjudgments when deciding whether they have previously seenan own-race (versus an other-race) face [21 28] Witnessesalso have a lower (ie more lenient) response criterion forother-race faces meaning that they are more willing to makea positive identification for other-race faces than they arefor own-race faces [8 13] As a result they make more falsealarms for other-race than own-race faces (eg [29ndash31])

Response criterion placement can be influenced by exper-imental manipulations that are external to the stimulussuch as instructions to adopt a more conservative responsecriterion (eg [32 33]) Instructions designed to shift onersquosresponse criterion (such as offering a financial incentive) haveyielded mixed results in a CRE paradigm with some studiesfinding that incentives reduce the CRE yet other studies find-ing that they do not [6 29] However instructions are capableof shifting eyewitnessesrsquo response criterion more generallyto make their responding more liberal or more conservativeFor example instructing them that the actual culprit may ormay not be present in a lineup induces a more conservativeresponse criterion [34] The fact that people are capableof changing their response criterion and of using differentresponse criteria for different types of stimuli [32] suggeststhat it should be possible to produce criterion shifts for recog-nition of other-race faces The critical question is whether aretrieval-based manipulation can selectively alter a personrsquosresponse bias so that it shifts for one class of stimuli (ieother-race faces) but not for another (ie own-race faces)

In summary there are a number of different theorieshypothesized to explain the CRE none of which has yetto receive overwhelming support nor has resulted in thedevelopment of appropriate remedies There is an impor-tant practical advantage of retrieval-based explanations ofthe CRE namely that decision processes at retrieval areamenable to system variables like instructions during thelineup procedure [35 36] In contrast cross-race contact andencoding processes are estimator variables that might predictdifferential performance with targets of different races butthey are much less susceptible to intervention by the criminaljustice system From an applied perspective procedures thatinfluence cross-race identifications at the retrieval stage couldbe readily implemented by lineup administrators (eg by

providing those in a cross-race situation with specializedinstructions before the identification) Thus the primarypurpose of the present studies is to examine the effectivenessat reducing the CRE of special instructions given prior toretrieval

2 Experiment 1

Our initial study addressed whether altering the instruc-tions that participants receive at the retrieval phase in aface recognition task would induce a more conservativeresponse criterion and whether such instructions wouldaffect responding for own- and other-race faces differen-tially We included three types of instructions (a) controlinstructions (b) conservative instructions telling participantsto be extra careful when identifying a face of another raceand (c) accountability instructions telling participants thatthey would have to explain their identification choice asanother means of inducing a more conservative responsecriterion (cf [37]) Thus we expected (1) that participantswho received CRE instructions at retrieval would use a moreconservative response criterion and (2) that there would bean interaction between instructions and target race such thatthe instructions would reduce or eliminate the difference inresponse criterion for own- versus other-race faces

21 Method

211 Participants Participants were 17 male and 64 femaleWhite participants from a Midwestern university (119872 age =2109 SD = 364) who received extra course credit fortheir participation A total of 6 non-White participants weredropped from the analysis

212 Design Materials and Procedure The design for thestudy was a 2 (target face race White versus Black) times3 (instructions control versus accountability versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between-groups factorAfter consenting to participate students completed the entirestudy on a computer using MediaLab software The studyconsisted of four phases During the encoding phase par-ticipants received instructions to look at each face carefullyas they would be asked to recognize them later They thenviewed 20 own-race (White) and 20 other-race (Black) malefaces (smiling with everyday clothes on) which had beenmatched in a pretest on memorability ratings by same-raceparticipants The presentation of faces was blocked by raceand counterbalanced across participants theywere presentedat a 3-s rate

Phase 2 was a filler task a set of trivia questions that tookapproximately 10 minutes Following the trivia questionsparticipants completed the retrieval phase They receivedinstructions before viewing a set of 80 faces (40 old mixedrandomly with 40 new all wore the same color shirt whichwas different from the clothing worn during the encodingphase and were not smiling) and indicated whether they hadseen each face in the previous presentation Finally in the

Journal of Criminology 3

contact assessment phase participants completed an adaptedform of the multicultural experiences inventory (MEI [38])a measure of experiences and contact with individuals ofdifferent racialethnic backgrounds (we do not include resultsfor theMEI because we obtained little support for the contacthypothesis across studies Specifically correlations betweenthe amount of cross-racial contact andperformancemeasures(1198891015840 and C) ranged from 003 to 20 none of which wasstatistically significant)

The instruction manipulation occurred immediatelyprior to the retrieval phase In the control group (119899 = 27)participants were told to indicate whether or not they hadpreviously seen each face A second (accountability) group ofparticipants (119899 = 27) was told that in order to be sure the taskwas taken seriously they would have to justify their choice tothe experimenter and other participants upon the completionof the task (modeled on [37]) In the final (CRE-retrieval)group (119899 = 27) participants were told about the CRE (iethat people are better at recognizing members of their ownraceethnicity than members of other racesethnicities) andwere instructed to be sure when identifying a face of anotherrace

In all three groups the instructions were repeated peri-odically throughout the testing phase (after every 10 facespresented) Upon completing the retrieval phase participantscompleted the MEI They were then debriefed and thankedfor their participation

22 Results Discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion (C)served as the measures of interest (see Table 1) Discrimina-tion refers to individualsrsquo ability to tell apart previously seen(old) stimuli from new stimuli whereas response criterionrefers to their overall tendency to identify any stimuli aspreviously seen [33] These measures are widely used ineyewitness research and the CRE is associated with bothbetter discrimination and a higher (ie more conservative)response criterion for own-race than for other-race faces [8]

As expected there was a main effect of target race on1198891015840 119865 (1 78) = 778 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants were

significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquo from ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 80 SD = 07) than they were for other-race faces (119872 = 76 SD = 10) There was no main effectof instruction on 1198891015840 F (2 78) = 028 119875 = 76 120578

119901

2=

01 nor an interaction between instruction and target raceF (2 78) =103 119875 = 36 120578

119901

2= 02

There was a main effect of target race on responsecriterion (C) F (1 78) = 2050119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 21 Specifically

participantsweremore conservativewhenmaking judgmentsfor own-race faces (119872 = 28 SD = 28) than for other-racefaces (119872 = 16 SD = 26) Supporting our first hypothesis wealso found a significant effect of instruction type on responsecriterion F (2 78) = 536 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12 LSD post

hoc analysis determined that instructions produced a higherresponse criterion in the CRE-retrieval condition (119872 = 32SE = 04) compared to the control condition (119872 = 11SE = 04) the accountability condition (119872 = 23 SE =04) was intermediate and not significantly different fromeither of the other two conditions Thus it is possible to use

Table 1 Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 1

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 80 (07) 77 (10) 79Accountability 79 (08) 75 (08) 77CRE-retrieval 80 (07) 76 (09) 78Total 80 76119862

Control 16 (18) 07 (24) 11Accountability 31 (29) 15 (26) 23CRE-retrieval 37 (30) 27 (25) 32Total 28 (28) 16 (26)

instructions during the retrieval phase to make people moreconservative during a face recognition task The interactionbetween instruction and target race on response criterionwasnot significant F (2 78) = 071 119875 = 50 120578

119901

2= 02

3 Experiment 2

Because the retrieval instructions did not confer a greateradvantage on recognition of other-race faces (ie there wasno instructions x target race interaction) the next step wetook was to provide more explanation of the CRE [20 21]Experiment 2 also dropped the accountability instructions inorder to focus on instructions that directly targeted the CREIn addition Experiment 2 broadened the sample to includeparticipants from two different racialethnic backgroundsAlthough some CRE research uses participants of onlyone race for purposes of generalization it is preferable todemonstrate a full crossover effect withmultiple racialethnicgroups [6 7]

Hugenberg et al [20] found that special instructionsbefore encoding increased participantsrsquo ability to discrimi-nate between own- and other-race faces (Hugenberg et aldid not report data on response criterion) The present studysought to replicateHugenberg et alrsquos findingwhile comparingspecial instructions at encoding to special instructions atretrieval We predicted that both instructions would reducethe CRE compared to a control condition

31 Method

311 Participants Participants were a total of 203 studentsat two separate universities (ie one from the Midwest witha majority of White students and one from the Southwestwith a majority of Hispanic students) We analyzed data from83 White and 99 Hispanic participants (62 males and 141females age 119872 = 1933 years SD = 274) Data from 21participants of other racial backgrounds were not analyzed

312 Design Materials and Procedure The general proce-dure was the same as Experiment 1 except for the followingchanges First we included Hispanic faces in the target

4 Journal of Criminology

stimuli Thus all participants saw the same other-race faceswhich were Black Own-race faces were White for the Whiteparticipants and Hispanic for the Hispanic participantsSecond participants received control instructions (119899 = 67)special CRE instructions prior to encoding (119899 = 67) orspecial instructions prior to retrieval (119899 = 69) CRE-encodingparticipants were given the instructions from Hugenberg etal [20] before the encoding phaseThe instructions informedthem that ldquoPrevious research has shown that people reliablyshow what is known as the Cross-Race Effect (CRE) whenlearning faces Basically people tend to confuse faces thatbelong to other races For example a White learner will tendto mistake one Black face for another Now that you knowthis we would like you to try especially hard when learningfaces in this task that happen to be of a different race Do yourbest to try to pay close attention to what differentiates oneparticular face from another face of the same race especiallywhen that face is not of the same race as you Rememberpay very close attention to the faces especially when theyare of a different race than you in order to try to avoid thisCross-Race Effectrdquo CRE-retrieval participants were given thesame instructions except that they came prior to retrieval(accordingly ldquolearningrdquo was changed to ldquorecognizingrdquo andldquolearnerrdquo was changed to ldquoparticipantrdquo) Thus the designfor the study was a 2 (target face race own versus other) times3 (instructions control versus CRE-encoding versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between groups factor

32 Results The results from both universities followedthe same pattern so the data were combined for analysis(see Table 2) There was a main effect of target race ondiscrimination F (1 200) = 2819 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12

Participants were significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquofrom ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 96 SD = 68) than theywere for other-race faces (119872 = 69 SD = 55) There was nomain effect of instructions on 1198891015840 F (2 200) = 014 119875 = 87120578119901

2= 002 nor an interaction between instructions and

target race F (2 200) = 023 119875 = 79 120578119901

2= 002

There was a main effect of target race on response biasF (1 200) = 2013 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants had

a significantly higher (ie more conservative) criterion forown- (119872 = 17 SD = 47) than for other-race faces (119872 = 03SD = 46) There was also a significant effect of instructiontype on response bias F (1 200) = 1230 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2=

06 the response criterion was higher in the CRE-retrievalcondition (119872 = 20 SE = 05) than both the controlcondition (119872 = 03 SE = 05) and the CRE-encodingcondition (119872 = 05 SE = 05) the latter two conditions didnot differThere was no interaction between instructions andtarget race on response criterion F (1 200) = 073 119875 = 48120578119901

2= 007

4 General Discussion

Consistent with previous research on the CRE participantsin both experiments were better at recognizing own-racethan other-race faces (eg [8]) The CRE was manifested in

Table 2Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 2

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 95 (63) 63 (48) 79CRE-encoding 98 (67) 70 (62) 84CRE-retrieval 97 (72) 71 (55) 85Total 96 (68) 69 (55)119862

Control 11 (50) minus05 (37) 03CRE-encoding 15 (46) minus05 (46) 05CRE-retrieval 25 (45) 16 (50) 20Total 17 (47) 03 (46)

terms of both better discrimination and a more conservativeresponse criterion for own-race faces and it was obtained forboth White participants (Experiments 1 and 2) and Hispanicparticipants (Experiment 2) Thus as previous research hasdemonstrated [8] the CRE is a very robust effect

Attempts at utilizing instructions to reduce the CREhave generally not proven to be successful [6] In thepresent experiments instructing participants on the CRE andencouraging them to be cautious when identifying other-race faces was successful in one sense yet unsuccessful inanother senseThe retrieval instructions were effective in thatthey made participants more conservative thereby reducingfalse alarmsAlthough amore conservative response criterionwould also reduce hits the American criminal justice systemis set up in such a way that most would consider that adesirable tradeoff (ie it is better to let a guilty party gofree than to identify falsely and possibly convict an innocentperson see generally [39])

Instructing participants on the CRE prior to retrieval wasless successful in the sense that it did not reduce the CREthat is it did not improve performance selectively for other-race faces As the instruction came after the faces had alreadybeen encodedwe did not expect it to improve discriminationhowever we did expect it to change the response criterionmore for other-race than for own-race faces yet it failedto do so As in other sorts of recognition task [32 33]identification instructions are capable of moving witnessesrsquoresponse criterion up or down but it is difficult to findinstructions or lineup procedures more generally that haveselective effects [34 39] The inability of instructions at thetime of retrieval to moderate the CRE indirectly supportsthe importance of encoding processes in producing the CRE(eg [17 21] Although differential encoding of faces is lesssusceptible to intervention by the criminal justice systemthan would be differential retrieval processes it is possiblethat high-frequency witnesses could nonetheless be trainedto encode other-race faces more effectively [6 20 23]

Experiment 2 failed to replicate Hugenberg et alrsquos [20]finding regarding the effectiveness of special instructions atencoding The experiment was not significantly underpow-ered In a preliminary power analysis we used the smallesteffect size for 1198891015840 (119903 = 19) obtained by Hugenberg et al and

Journal of Criminology 5

found that for a power of 8 we would need approximately 191participants to reveal a significant interaction between race(own versus other) and instructions Experiment 2 includeddata from 182 participants (the original sample contained 203participants but 21 participants of other races were dropped)An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings is thatwe used different photos of the same individual at encodingand retrieval (ie a face recognition task) whereas theprevious study used the identical photos at encoding andretrieval (ie amemory task)We used a face recognition taskbecause it is more forensically valid in the real world targetsdo not look identical (in terms of clothing hair pose etc) atencoding and retrieval Although many eyewitness phenom-ena hold across variations in the realism of the experimentaltask [40] future research should ascertain whether encodinginstructions would be effective in forensically valid contexts

In conclusion the present experiments show that itis possible to raise eyewitnessesrsquo response criterionmdashandthereby reduce the false alarm ratemdashby providing themwith instructions about the CRE and exhorting them tobe cautious when making identification decisions Althoughsuch instructions do not reduce the CRE per semdashin termsof altering the response criterion selectively for other-racefacesmdashthey nonetheless have the potential to reduce falseidentifications

References

[1] M Boyce J L Beaudry and R C L Lindsay ldquoBelief ofeyewitness identification evidencerdquo inMemory for People R CL Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 501ndash525 ErlbaumMahwah NJ USA 2007

[2] B H Bornstein S OrsquoBryant and D Zickafoose ldquoIntuitionsabout arousal and eyewitness memory effects on mock jurorsrsquojudgmentsrdquo Law and Psychology Review vol 32 pp 109ndash1332008

[3] T M S Neal A Christiansen B H Bornstein and T RRobicheaux ldquoThe effects of mock jurorsrsquo beliefs about eyewit-ness performance on trial judgmentsrdquo Psychology Crime andLaw vol 18 no 1 pp 49ndash64 2012

[4] G LWells AMemon and S D Penrod ldquoEyewitness evidenceimproving its probative valuerdquo Psychological Science in thePublic Interest Supplement vol 7 no 2 pp 45ndash75 2006

[5] G LWells M Small S Penrod R SMalpass SM Fulero andC A E Brimacombe ldquoEyewitness identification proceduresrecommendations for lineups and photospreadsrdquo Law andHuman Behavior vol 22 no 6 pp 603ndash647 1998

[6] J C Brigham ldquoThe role of race and racial prejudice inrecognizing other peoplerdquo in Motivational Aspects of Prejudiceand Racism C Willis-Esqueda Ed pp 68ndash110 Springer NewYork NY USA 2008

[7] J C Brigham L B Bennett C A Meissner and T L MitchellldquoThe influence of race on eyewitness memoryrdquo in Memory forPeople R C L Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P TogliaEds vol 2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 257ndash282Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2007

[8] C A Meissner and J C Brigham ldquoThirty years of investigatingthe own-race bias in memory for faces a meta-analytic reviewrdquoPsychology Public Policy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 3ndash35 2001

[9] D J Kelly S Liu L Ge et al ldquoCross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the african versus caucasian contrastin 3-month-old infantsrdquo Infancy vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2007

[10] K Pezdek I Blandon-Gitlin and C Moore ldquoChildrenrsquos facerecognition memory more evidence for the cross-race effectrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology vol 88 no 4 pp 760ndash763 2003

[11] J C Brigham and N L Williamson ldquoCross-racial recognitionand age when yoursquore over 60 do they still lsquoall look alikersquordquoPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 5 pp 218ndash2221979

[12] J Abshire and B H Bornstein ldquoJuror sensitivity to the cross-race effectrdquo Law and Human Behavior vol 27 no 5 pp 471ndash480 2003

[13] S L Sporer ldquoRecognizing faces of other ethnic groups anintegration of theoriesrdquo Psychology Public Policy and Law vol7 no 1 pp 36ndash97 2001

[14] J C Brigham and R S Malpass ldquoThe role of experience andcontact in the recognition of faces of own- and other- racepersonsrdquo Journal of Social Issues vol 41 no 3 pp 139ndash155 1985

[15] P Chiroro and T Valentine ldquoAn investigation of the contacthypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognitionrdquo QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology A vol 48 pp 879ndash894 1995

[16] O H MacLin B R van Sickler M K MacLin and A Li ldquoA re-examination of the cross-race effect the role of race inversionand basketball triviardquo North American Journal of Psychologyvol 6 pp 189ndash204 2004

[17] K J Susa C A Meissner and H D Heer ldquoModeling the role ofsocial-cognitive processes in the recognition of own-and other-race facesrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 4 pp 523ndash537 2010

[18] W Ng and R C L Lindsay ldquoCross-Race facial recognitionfailure of the contact hypothesisrdquo Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology vol 25 pp 217ndash232 1994

[19] J R Evans J L Marcon and C A Meissner ldquoCross-raciallineup identification assessing the potential benefits of contextreinstatementrdquo Psychology Crime and Law vol 15 no 1 pp 19ndash28 2009

[20] K Hugenberg J Miller and H M Claypool ldquoCategorizationand individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit toward asolution to an insidious problemrdquo Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology vol 43 no 2 pp 334ndash340 2007

[21] C A Meissner J C Brigham and D A Butz ldquoMemory forown- and other-race faces a dual-process approachrdquo AppliedCognitive Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 545ndash567 2005

[22] D T Levin ldquoRace as a visual feature using visual search andperceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categoriesand the cross-race recognition deficitrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General vol 129 no 4 pp 559ndash574 2000

[23] P J Hills and M B Lewis ldquoReducing the own-race bias inface recognition by shifting attentionrdquo Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology vol 59 no 6 pp 996ndash1002 2006

[24] S D Goldinger Y He andM H Papesh ldquoDeficits in cross-raceface learning insights from eye movements and pupillometryrdquoJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory andCognition vol 35 no 5 pp 1105ndash1122 2009

[25] J W Shepherd and J B Deregowski ldquoRaces and facesmdashacomparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans tofaces of the same and different racesrdquo British Journal of SocialPsychology vol 20 no 2 pp 125ndash133 1981

[26] C Michel B Rossion J Han C S Chung and R CaldaraldquoHolistic processing is finely tuned for faces of onersquos own racerdquoPsychological Science vol 17 no 7 pp 608ndash615 2006

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

2 Journal of Criminology

making useful distinctions between facesmdashsuch as attendingto distinguishing facial featuresmdashthatmay not be useful whenapplied to members of a different race [22 23] Indeed thereis evidence that individuals attend to different facial featuresas a function of a target facersquos race [24 25] or process own-race faces more holistically [26] This differential encodingreflects at least in part a tendency to perceive members ofoutgroups as more homogeneous than members of ingroups[20]Hugenberg and colleagues [20 27] have found thatwhenperceivers aremade aware prior to encoding of their tendencyto engage in categorical thinking about outgroup membersthey pay more attention to outgroup membersrsquo unique traitsand characteristicsmdashthereby reducing the CRE

The third and final class of explanations deals withretrieval-based processes Research evidence indicates thatthe CRE reflects different processes and decision strategiesoccurring at the time of retrieval More specifically peoplerely more on recollection processes as opposed to familiarityjudgments when deciding whether they have previously seenan own-race (versus an other-race) face [21 28] Witnessesalso have a lower (ie more lenient) response criterion forother-race faces meaning that they are more willing to makea positive identification for other-race faces than they arefor own-race faces [8 13] As a result they make more falsealarms for other-race than own-race faces (eg [29ndash31])

Response criterion placement can be influenced by exper-imental manipulations that are external to the stimulussuch as instructions to adopt a more conservative responsecriterion (eg [32 33]) Instructions designed to shift onersquosresponse criterion (such as offering a financial incentive) haveyielded mixed results in a CRE paradigm with some studiesfinding that incentives reduce the CRE yet other studies find-ing that they do not [6 29] However instructions are capableof shifting eyewitnessesrsquo response criterion more generallyto make their responding more liberal or more conservativeFor example instructing them that the actual culprit may ormay not be present in a lineup induces a more conservativeresponse criterion [34] The fact that people are capableof changing their response criterion and of using differentresponse criteria for different types of stimuli [32] suggeststhat it should be possible to produce criterion shifts for recog-nition of other-race faces The critical question is whether aretrieval-based manipulation can selectively alter a personrsquosresponse bias so that it shifts for one class of stimuli (ieother-race faces) but not for another (ie own-race faces)

In summary there are a number of different theorieshypothesized to explain the CRE none of which has yetto receive overwhelming support nor has resulted in thedevelopment of appropriate remedies There is an impor-tant practical advantage of retrieval-based explanations ofthe CRE namely that decision processes at retrieval areamenable to system variables like instructions during thelineup procedure [35 36] In contrast cross-race contact andencoding processes are estimator variables that might predictdifferential performance with targets of different races butthey are much less susceptible to intervention by the criminaljustice system From an applied perspective procedures thatinfluence cross-race identifications at the retrieval stage couldbe readily implemented by lineup administrators (eg by

providing those in a cross-race situation with specializedinstructions before the identification) Thus the primarypurpose of the present studies is to examine the effectivenessat reducing the CRE of special instructions given prior toretrieval

2 Experiment 1

Our initial study addressed whether altering the instruc-tions that participants receive at the retrieval phase in aface recognition task would induce a more conservativeresponse criterion and whether such instructions wouldaffect responding for own- and other-race faces differen-tially We included three types of instructions (a) controlinstructions (b) conservative instructions telling participantsto be extra careful when identifying a face of another raceand (c) accountability instructions telling participants thatthey would have to explain their identification choice asanother means of inducing a more conservative responsecriterion (cf [37]) Thus we expected (1) that participantswho received CRE instructions at retrieval would use a moreconservative response criterion and (2) that there would bean interaction between instructions and target race such thatthe instructions would reduce or eliminate the difference inresponse criterion for own- versus other-race faces

21 Method

211 Participants Participants were 17 male and 64 femaleWhite participants from a Midwestern university (119872 age =2109 SD = 364) who received extra course credit fortheir participation A total of 6 non-White participants weredropped from the analysis

212 Design Materials and Procedure The design for thestudy was a 2 (target face race White versus Black) times3 (instructions control versus accountability versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between-groups factorAfter consenting to participate students completed the entirestudy on a computer using MediaLab software The studyconsisted of four phases During the encoding phase par-ticipants received instructions to look at each face carefullyas they would be asked to recognize them later They thenviewed 20 own-race (White) and 20 other-race (Black) malefaces (smiling with everyday clothes on) which had beenmatched in a pretest on memorability ratings by same-raceparticipants The presentation of faces was blocked by raceand counterbalanced across participants theywere presentedat a 3-s rate

Phase 2 was a filler task a set of trivia questions that tookapproximately 10 minutes Following the trivia questionsparticipants completed the retrieval phase They receivedinstructions before viewing a set of 80 faces (40 old mixedrandomly with 40 new all wore the same color shirt whichwas different from the clothing worn during the encodingphase and were not smiling) and indicated whether they hadseen each face in the previous presentation Finally in the

Journal of Criminology 3

contact assessment phase participants completed an adaptedform of the multicultural experiences inventory (MEI [38])a measure of experiences and contact with individuals ofdifferent racialethnic backgrounds (we do not include resultsfor theMEI because we obtained little support for the contacthypothesis across studies Specifically correlations betweenthe amount of cross-racial contact andperformancemeasures(1198891015840 and C) ranged from 003 to 20 none of which wasstatistically significant)

The instruction manipulation occurred immediatelyprior to the retrieval phase In the control group (119899 = 27)participants were told to indicate whether or not they hadpreviously seen each face A second (accountability) group ofparticipants (119899 = 27) was told that in order to be sure the taskwas taken seriously they would have to justify their choice tothe experimenter and other participants upon the completionof the task (modeled on [37]) In the final (CRE-retrieval)group (119899 = 27) participants were told about the CRE (iethat people are better at recognizing members of their ownraceethnicity than members of other racesethnicities) andwere instructed to be sure when identifying a face of anotherrace

In all three groups the instructions were repeated peri-odically throughout the testing phase (after every 10 facespresented) Upon completing the retrieval phase participantscompleted the MEI They were then debriefed and thankedfor their participation

22 Results Discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion (C)served as the measures of interest (see Table 1) Discrimina-tion refers to individualsrsquo ability to tell apart previously seen(old) stimuli from new stimuli whereas response criterionrefers to their overall tendency to identify any stimuli aspreviously seen [33] These measures are widely used ineyewitness research and the CRE is associated with bothbetter discrimination and a higher (ie more conservative)response criterion for own-race than for other-race faces [8]

As expected there was a main effect of target race on1198891015840 119865 (1 78) = 778 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants were

significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquo from ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 80 SD = 07) than they were for other-race faces (119872 = 76 SD = 10) There was no main effectof instruction on 1198891015840 F (2 78) = 028 119875 = 76 120578

119901

2=

01 nor an interaction between instruction and target raceF (2 78) =103 119875 = 36 120578

119901

2= 02

There was a main effect of target race on responsecriterion (C) F (1 78) = 2050119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 21 Specifically

participantsweremore conservativewhenmaking judgmentsfor own-race faces (119872 = 28 SD = 28) than for other-racefaces (119872 = 16 SD = 26) Supporting our first hypothesis wealso found a significant effect of instruction type on responsecriterion F (2 78) = 536 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12 LSD post

hoc analysis determined that instructions produced a higherresponse criterion in the CRE-retrieval condition (119872 = 32SE = 04) compared to the control condition (119872 = 11SE = 04) the accountability condition (119872 = 23 SE =04) was intermediate and not significantly different fromeither of the other two conditions Thus it is possible to use

Table 1 Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 1

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 80 (07) 77 (10) 79Accountability 79 (08) 75 (08) 77CRE-retrieval 80 (07) 76 (09) 78Total 80 76119862

Control 16 (18) 07 (24) 11Accountability 31 (29) 15 (26) 23CRE-retrieval 37 (30) 27 (25) 32Total 28 (28) 16 (26)

instructions during the retrieval phase to make people moreconservative during a face recognition task The interactionbetween instruction and target race on response criterionwasnot significant F (2 78) = 071 119875 = 50 120578

119901

2= 02

3 Experiment 2

Because the retrieval instructions did not confer a greateradvantage on recognition of other-race faces (ie there wasno instructions x target race interaction) the next step wetook was to provide more explanation of the CRE [20 21]Experiment 2 also dropped the accountability instructions inorder to focus on instructions that directly targeted the CREIn addition Experiment 2 broadened the sample to includeparticipants from two different racialethnic backgroundsAlthough some CRE research uses participants of onlyone race for purposes of generalization it is preferable todemonstrate a full crossover effect withmultiple racialethnicgroups [6 7]

Hugenberg et al [20] found that special instructionsbefore encoding increased participantsrsquo ability to discrimi-nate between own- and other-race faces (Hugenberg et aldid not report data on response criterion) The present studysought to replicateHugenberg et alrsquos findingwhile comparingspecial instructions at encoding to special instructions atretrieval We predicted that both instructions would reducethe CRE compared to a control condition

31 Method

311 Participants Participants were a total of 203 studentsat two separate universities (ie one from the Midwest witha majority of White students and one from the Southwestwith a majority of Hispanic students) We analyzed data from83 White and 99 Hispanic participants (62 males and 141females age 119872 = 1933 years SD = 274) Data from 21participants of other racial backgrounds were not analyzed

312 Design Materials and Procedure The general proce-dure was the same as Experiment 1 except for the followingchanges First we included Hispanic faces in the target

4 Journal of Criminology

stimuli Thus all participants saw the same other-race faceswhich were Black Own-race faces were White for the Whiteparticipants and Hispanic for the Hispanic participantsSecond participants received control instructions (119899 = 67)special CRE instructions prior to encoding (119899 = 67) orspecial instructions prior to retrieval (119899 = 69) CRE-encodingparticipants were given the instructions from Hugenberg etal [20] before the encoding phaseThe instructions informedthem that ldquoPrevious research has shown that people reliablyshow what is known as the Cross-Race Effect (CRE) whenlearning faces Basically people tend to confuse faces thatbelong to other races For example a White learner will tendto mistake one Black face for another Now that you knowthis we would like you to try especially hard when learningfaces in this task that happen to be of a different race Do yourbest to try to pay close attention to what differentiates oneparticular face from another face of the same race especiallywhen that face is not of the same race as you Rememberpay very close attention to the faces especially when theyare of a different race than you in order to try to avoid thisCross-Race Effectrdquo CRE-retrieval participants were given thesame instructions except that they came prior to retrieval(accordingly ldquolearningrdquo was changed to ldquorecognizingrdquo andldquolearnerrdquo was changed to ldquoparticipantrdquo) Thus the designfor the study was a 2 (target face race own versus other) times3 (instructions control versus CRE-encoding versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between groups factor

32 Results The results from both universities followedthe same pattern so the data were combined for analysis(see Table 2) There was a main effect of target race ondiscrimination F (1 200) = 2819 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12

Participants were significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquofrom ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 96 SD = 68) than theywere for other-race faces (119872 = 69 SD = 55) There was nomain effect of instructions on 1198891015840 F (2 200) = 014 119875 = 87120578119901

2= 002 nor an interaction between instructions and

target race F (2 200) = 023 119875 = 79 120578119901

2= 002

There was a main effect of target race on response biasF (1 200) = 2013 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants had

a significantly higher (ie more conservative) criterion forown- (119872 = 17 SD = 47) than for other-race faces (119872 = 03SD = 46) There was also a significant effect of instructiontype on response bias F (1 200) = 1230 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2=

06 the response criterion was higher in the CRE-retrievalcondition (119872 = 20 SE = 05) than both the controlcondition (119872 = 03 SE = 05) and the CRE-encodingcondition (119872 = 05 SE = 05) the latter two conditions didnot differThere was no interaction between instructions andtarget race on response criterion F (1 200) = 073 119875 = 48120578119901

2= 007

4 General Discussion

Consistent with previous research on the CRE participantsin both experiments were better at recognizing own-racethan other-race faces (eg [8]) The CRE was manifested in

Table 2Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 2

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 95 (63) 63 (48) 79CRE-encoding 98 (67) 70 (62) 84CRE-retrieval 97 (72) 71 (55) 85Total 96 (68) 69 (55)119862

Control 11 (50) minus05 (37) 03CRE-encoding 15 (46) minus05 (46) 05CRE-retrieval 25 (45) 16 (50) 20Total 17 (47) 03 (46)

terms of both better discrimination and a more conservativeresponse criterion for own-race faces and it was obtained forboth White participants (Experiments 1 and 2) and Hispanicparticipants (Experiment 2) Thus as previous research hasdemonstrated [8] the CRE is a very robust effect

Attempts at utilizing instructions to reduce the CREhave generally not proven to be successful [6] In thepresent experiments instructing participants on the CRE andencouraging them to be cautious when identifying other-race faces was successful in one sense yet unsuccessful inanother senseThe retrieval instructions were effective in thatthey made participants more conservative thereby reducingfalse alarmsAlthough amore conservative response criterionwould also reduce hits the American criminal justice systemis set up in such a way that most would consider that adesirable tradeoff (ie it is better to let a guilty party gofree than to identify falsely and possibly convict an innocentperson see generally [39])

Instructing participants on the CRE prior to retrieval wasless successful in the sense that it did not reduce the CREthat is it did not improve performance selectively for other-race faces As the instruction came after the faces had alreadybeen encodedwe did not expect it to improve discriminationhowever we did expect it to change the response criterionmore for other-race than for own-race faces yet it failedto do so As in other sorts of recognition task [32 33]identification instructions are capable of moving witnessesrsquoresponse criterion up or down but it is difficult to findinstructions or lineup procedures more generally that haveselective effects [34 39] The inability of instructions at thetime of retrieval to moderate the CRE indirectly supportsthe importance of encoding processes in producing the CRE(eg [17 21] Although differential encoding of faces is lesssusceptible to intervention by the criminal justice systemthan would be differential retrieval processes it is possiblethat high-frequency witnesses could nonetheless be trainedto encode other-race faces more effectively [6 20 23]

Experiment 2 failed to replicate Hugenberg et alrsquos [20]finding regarding the effectiveness of special instructions atencoding The experiment was not significantly underpow-ered In a preliminary power analysis we used the smallesteffect size for 1198891015840 (119903 = 19) obtained by Hugenberg et al and

Journal of Criminology 5

found that for a power of 8 we would need approximately 191participants to reveal a significant interaction between race(own versus other) and instructions Experiment 2 includeddata from 182 participants (the original sample contained 203participants but 21 participants of other races were dropped)An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings is thatwe used different photos of the same individual at encodingand retrieval (ie a face recognition task) whereas theprevious study used the identical photos at encoding andretrieval (ie amemory task)We used a face recognition taskbecause it is more forensically valid in the real world targetsdo not look identical (in terms of clothing hair pose etc) atencoding and retrieval Although many eyewitness phenom-ena hold across variations in the realism of the experimentaltask [40] future research should ascertain whether encodinginstructions would be effective in forensically valid contexts

In conclusion the present experiments show that itis possible to raise eyewitnessesrsquo response criterionmdashandthereby reduce the false alarm ratemdashby providing themwith instructions about the CRE and exhorting them tobe cautious when making identification decisions Althoughsuch instructions do not reduce the CRE per semdashin termsof altering the response criterion selectively for other-racefacesmdashthey nonetheless have the potential to reduce falseidentifications

References

[1] M Boyce J L Beaudry and R C L Lindsay ldquoBelief ofeyewitness identification evidencerdquo inMemory for People R CL Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 501ndash525 ErlbaumMahwah NJ USA 2007

[2] B H Bornstein S OrsquoBryant and D Zickafoose ldquoIntuitionsabout arousal and eyewitness memory effects on mock jurorsrsquojudgmentsrdquo Law and Psychology Review vol 32 pp 109ndash1332008

[3] T M S Neal A Christiansen B H Bornstein and T RRobicheaux ldquoThe effects of mock jurorsrsquo beliefs about eyewit-ness performance on trial judgmentsrdquo Psychology Crime andLaw vol 18 no 1 pp 49ndash64 2012

[4] G LWells AMemon and S D Penrod ldquoEyewitness evidenceimproving its probative valuerdquo Psychological Science in thePublic Interest Supplement vol 7 no 2 pp 45ndash75 2006

[5] G LWells M Small S Penrod R SMalpass SM Fulero andC A E Brimacombe ldquoEyewitness identification proceduresrecommendations for lineups and photospreadsrdquo Law andHuman Behavior vol 22 no 6 pp 603ndash647 1998

[6] J C Brigham ldquoThe role of race and racial prejudice inrecognizing other peoplerdquo in Motivational Aspects of Prejudiceand Racism C Willis-Esqueda Ed pp 68ndash110 Springer NewYork NY USA 2008

[7] J C Brigham L B Bennett C A Meissner and T L MitchellldquoThe influence of race on eyewitness memoryrdquo in Memory forPeople R C L Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P TogliaEds vol 2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 257ndash282Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2007

[8] C A Meissner and J C Brigham ldquoThirty years of investigatingthe own-race bias in memory for faces a meta-analytic reviewrdquoPsychology Public Policy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 3ndash35 2001

[9] D J Kelly S Liu L Ge et al ldquoCross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the african versus caucasian contrastin 3-month-old infantsrdquo Infancy vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2007

[10] K Pezdek I Blandon-Gitlin and C Moore ldquoChildrenrsquos facerecognition memory more evidence for the cross-race effectrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology vol 88 no 4 pp 760ndash763 2003

[11] J C Brigham and N L Williamson ldquoCross-racial recognitionand age when yoursquore over 60 do they still lsquoall look alikersquordquoPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 5 pp 218ndash2221979

[12] J Abshire and B H Bornstein ldquoJuror sensitivity to the cross-race effectrdquo Law and Human Behavior vol 27 no 5 pp 471ndash480 2003

[13] S L Sporer ldquoRecognizing faces of other ethnic groups anintegration of theoriesrdquo Psychology Public Policy and Law vol7 no 1 pp 36ndash97 2001

[14] J C Brigham and R S Malpass ldquoThe role of experience andcontact in the recognition of faces of own- and other- racepersonsrdquo Journal of Social Issues vol 41 no 3 pp 139ndash155 1985

[15] P Chiroro and T Valentine ldquoAn investigation of the contacthypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognitionrdquo QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology A vol 48 pp 879ndash894 1995

[16] O H MacLin B R van Sickler M K MacLin and A Li ldquoA re-examination of the cross-race effect the role of race inversionand basketball triviardquo North American Journal of Psychologyvol 6 pp 189ndash204 2004

[17] K J Susa C A Meissner and H D Heer ldquoModeling the role ofsocial-cognitive processes in the recognition of own-and other-race facesrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 4 pp 523ndash537 2010

[18] W Ng and R C L Lindsay ldquoCross-Race facial recognitionfailure of the contact hypothesisrdquo Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology vol 25 pp 217ndash232 1994

[19] J R Evans J L Marcon and C A Meissner ldquoCross-raciallineup identification assessing the potential benefits of contextreinstatementrdquo Psychology Crime and Law vol 15 no 1 pp 19ndash28 2009

[20] K Hugenberg J Miller and H M Claypool ldquoCategorizationand individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit toward asolution to an insidious problemrdquo Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology vol 43 no 2 pp 334ndash340 2007

[21] C A Meissner J C Brigham and D A Butz ldquoMemory forown- and other-race faces a dual-process approachrdquo AppliedCognitive Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 545ndash567 2005

[22] D T Levin ldquoRace as a visual feature using visual search andperceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categoriesand the cross-race recognition deficitrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General vol 129 no 4 pp 559ndash574 2000

[23] P J Hills and M B Lewis ldquoReducing the own-race bias inface recognition by shifting attentionrdquo Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology vol 59 no 6 pp 996ndash1002 2006

[24] S D Goldinger Y He andM H Papesh ldquoDeficits in cross-raceface learning insights from eye movements and pupillometryrdquoJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory andCognition vol 35 no 5 pp 1105ndash1122 2009

[25] J W Shepherd and J B Deregowski ldquoRaces and facesmdashacomparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans tofaces of the same and different racesrdquo British Journal of SocialPsychology vol 20 no 2 pp 125ndash133 1981

[26] C Michel B Rossion J Han C S Chung and R CaldaraldquoHolistic processing is finely tuned for faces of onersquos own racerdquoPsychological Science vol 17 no 7 pp 608ndash615 2006

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of Criminology 3

contact assessment phase participants completed an adaptedform of the multicultural experiences inventory (MEI [38])a measure of experiences and contact with individuals ofdifferent racialethnic backgrounds (we do not include resultsfor theMEI because we obtained little support for the contacthypothesis across studies Specifically correlations betweenthe amount of cross-racial contact andperformancemeasures(1198891015840 and C) ranged from 003 to 20 none of which wasstatistically significant)

The instruction manipulation occurred immediatelyprior to the retrieval phase In the control group (119899 = 27)participants were told to indicate whether or not they hadpreviously seen each face A second (accountability) group ofparticipants (119899 = 27) was told that in order to be sure the taskwas taken seriously they would have to justify their choice tothe experimenter and other participants upon the completionof the task (modeled on [37]) In the final (CRE-retrieval)group (119899 = 27) participants were told about the CRE (iethat people are better at recognizing members of their ownraceethnicity than members of other racesethnicities) andwere instructed to be sure when identifying a face of anotherrace

In all three groups the instructions were repeated peri-odically throughout the testing phase (after every 10 facespresented) Upon completing the retrieval phase participantscompleted the MEI They were then debriefed and thankedfor their participation

22 Results Discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion (C)served as the measures of interest (see Table 1) Discrimina-tion refers to individualsrsquo ability to tell apart previously seen(old) stimuli from new stimuli whereas response criterionrefers to their overall tendency to identify any stimuli aspreviously seen [33] These measures are widely used ineyewitness research and the CRE is associated with bothbetter discrimination and a higher (ie more conservative)response criterion for own-race than for other-race faces [8]

As expected there was a main effect of target race on1198891015840 119865 (1 78) = 778 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants were

significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquo from ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 80 SD = 07) than they were for other-race faces (119872 = 76 SD = 10) There was no main effectof instruction on 1198891015840 F (2 78) = 028 119875 = 76 120578

119901

2=

01 nor an interaction between instruction and target raceF (2 78) =103 119875 = 36 120578

119901

2= 02

There was a main effect of target race on responsecriterion (C) F (1 78) = 2050119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 21 Specifically

participantsweremore conservativewhenmaking judgmentsfor own-race faces (119872 = 28 SD = 28) than for other-racefaces (119872 = 16 SD = 26) Supporting our first hypothesis wealso found a significant effect of instruction type on responsecriterion F (2 78) = 536 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12 LSD post

hoc analysis determined that instructions produced a higherresponse criterion in the CRE-retrieval condition (119872 = 32SE = 04) compared to the control condition (119872 = 11SE = 04) the accountability condition (119872 = 23 SE =04) was intermediate and not significantly different fromeither of the other two conditions Thus it is possible to use

Table 1 Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 1

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 80 (07) 77 (10) 79Accountability 79 (08) 75 (08) 77CRE-retrieval 80 (07) 76 (09) 78Total 80 76119862

Control 16 (18) 07 (24) 11Accountability 31 (29) 15 (26) 23CRE-retrieval 37 (30) 27 (25) 32Total 28 (28) 16 (26)

instructions during the retrieval phase to make people moreconservative during a face recognition task The interactionbetween instruction and target race on response criterionwasnot significant F (2 78) = 071 119875 = 50 120578

119901

2= 02

3 Experiment 2

Because the retrieval instructions did not confer a greateradvantage on recognition of other-race faces (ie there wasno instructions x target race interaction) the next step wetook was to provide more explanation of the CRE [20 21]Experiment 2 also dropped the accountability instructions inorder to focus on instructions that directly targeted the CREIn addition Experiment 2 broadened the sample to includeparticipants from two different racialethnic backgroundsAlthough some CRE research uses participants of onlyone race for purposes of generalization it is preferable todemonstrate a full crossover effect withmultiple racialethnicgroups [6 7]

Hugenberg et al [20] found that special instructionsbefore encoding increased participantsrsquo ability to discrimi-nate between own- and other-race faces (Hugenberg et aldid not report data on response criterion) The present studysought to replicateHugenberg et alrsquos findingwhile comparingspecial instructions at encoding to special instructions atretrieval We predicted that both instructions would reducethe CRE compared to a control condition

31 Method

311 Participants Participants were a total of 203 studentsat two separate universities (ie one from the Midwest witha majority of White students and one from the Southwestwith a majority of Hispanic students) We analyzed data from83 White and 99 Hispanic participants (62 males and 141females age 119872 = 1933 years SD = 274) Data from 21participants of other racial backgrounds were not analyzed

312 Design Materials and Procedure The general proce-dure was the same as Experiment 1 except for the followingchanges First we included Hispanic faces in the target

4 Journal of Criminology

stimuli Thus all participants saw the same other-race faceswhich were Black Own-race faces were White for the Whiteparticipants and Hispanic for the Hispanic participantsSecond participants received control instructions (119899 = 67)special CRE instructions prior to encoding (119899 = 67) orspecial instructions prior to retrieval (119899 = 69) CRE-encodingparticipants were given the instructions from Hugenberg etal [20] before the encoding phaseThe instructions informedthem that ldquoPrevious research has shown that people reliablyshow what is known as the Cross-Race Effect (CRE) whenlearning faces Basically people tend to confuse faces thatbelong to other races For example a White learner will tendto mistake one Black face for another Now that you knowthis we would like you to try especially hard when learningfaces in this task that happen to be of a different race Do yourbest to try to pay close attention to what differentiates oneparticular face from another face of the same race especiallywhen that face is not of the same race as you Rememberpay very close attention to the faces especially when theyare of a different race than you in order to try to avoid thisCross-Race Effectrdquo CRE-retrieval participants were given thesame instructions except that they came prior to retrieval(accordingly ldquolearningrdquo was changed to ldquorecognizingrdquo andldquolearnerrdquo was changed to ldquoparticipantrdquo) Thus the designfor the study was a 2 (target face race own versus other) times3 (instructions control versus CRE-encoding versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between groups factor

32 Results The results from both universities followedthe same pattern so the data were combined for analysis(see Table 2) There was a main effect of target race ondiscrimination F (1 200) = 2819 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12

Participants were significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquofrom ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 96 SD = 68) than theywere for other-race faces (119872 = 69 SD = 55) There was nomain effect of instructions on 1198891015840 F (2 200) = 014 119875 = 87120578119901

2= 002 nor an interaction between instructions and

target race F (2 200) = 023 119875 = 79 120578119901

2= 002

There was a main effect of target race on response biasF (1 200) = 2013 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants had

a significantly higher (ie more conservative) criterion forown- (119872 = 17 SD = 47) than for other-race faces (119872 = 03SD = 46) There was also a significant effect of instructiontype on response bias F (1 200) = 1230 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2=

06 the response criterion was higher in the CRE-retrievalcondition (119872 = 20 SE = 05) than both the controlcondition (119872 = 03 SE = 05) and the CRE-encodingcondition (119872 = 05 SE = 05) the latter two conditions didnot differThere was no interaction between instructions andtarget race on response criterion F (1 200) = 073 119875 = 48120578119901

2= 007

4 General Discussion

Consistent with previous research on the CRE participantsin both experiments were better at recognizing own-racethan other-race faces (eg [8]) The CRE was manifested in

Table 2Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 2

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 95 (63) 63 (48) 79CRE-encoding 98 (67) 70 (62) 84CRE-retrieval 97 (72) 71 (55) 85Total 96 (68) 69 (55)119862

Control 11 (50) minus05 (37) 03CRE-encoding 15 (46) minus05 (46) 05CRE-retrieval 25 (45) 16 (50) 20Total 17 (47) 03 (46)

terms of both better discrimination and a more conservativeresponse criterion for own-race faces and it was obtained forboth White participants (Experiments 1 and 2) and Hispanicparticipants (Experiment 2) Thus as previous research hasdemonstrated [8] the CRE is a very robust effect

Attempts at utilizing instructions to reduce the CREhave generally not proven to be successful [6] In thepresent experiments instructing participants on the CRE andencouraging them to be cautious when identifying other-race faces was successful in one sense yet unsuccessful inanother senseThe retrieval instructions were effective in thatthey made participants more conservative thereby reducingfalse alarmsAlthough amore conservative response criterionwould also reduce hits the American criminal justice systemis set up in such a way that most would consider that adesirable tradeoff (ie it is better to let a guilty party gofree than to identify falsely and possibly convict an innocentperson see generally [39])

Instructing participants on the CRE prior to retrieval wasless successful in the sense that it did not reduce the CREthat is it did not improve performance selectively for other-race faces As the instruction came after the faces had alreadybeen encodedwe did not expect it to improve discriminationhowever we did expect it to change the response criterionmore for other-race than for own-race faces yet it failedto do so As in other sorts of recognition task [32 33]identification instructions are capable of moving witnessesrsquoresponse criterion up or down but it is difficult to findinstructions or lineup procedures more generally that haveselective effects [34 39] The inability of instructions at thetime of retrieval to moderate the CRE indirectly supportsthe importance of encoding processes in producing the CRE(eg [17 21] Although differential encoding of faces is lesssusceptible to intervention by the criminal justice systemthan would be differential retrieval processes it is possiblethat high-frequency witnesses could nonetheless be trainedto encode other-race faces more effectively [6 20 23]

Experiment 2 failed to replicate Hugenberg et alrsquos [20]finding regarding the effectiveness of special instructions atencoding The experiment was not significantly underpow-ered In a preliminary power analysis we used the smallesteffect size for 1198891015840 (119903 = 19) obtained by Hugenberg et al and

Journal of Criminology 5

found that for a power of 8 we would need approximately 191participants to reveal a significant interaction between race(own versus other) and instructions Experiment 2 includeddata from 182 participants (the original sample contained 203participants but 21 participants of other races were dropped)An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings is thatwe used different photos of the same individual at encodingand retrieval (ie a face recognition task) whereas theprevious study used the identical photos at encoding andretrieval (ie amemory task)We used a face recognition taskbecause it is more forensically valid in the real world targetsdo not look identical (in terms of clothing hair pose etc) atencoding and retrieval Although many eyewitness phenom-ena hold across variations in the realism of the experimentaltask [40] future research should ascertain whether encodinginstructions would be effective in forensically valid contexts

In conclusion the present experiments show that itis possible to raise eyewitnessesrsquo response criterionmdashandthereby reduce the false alarm ratemdashby providing themwith instructions about the CRE and exhorting them tobe cautious when making identification decisions Althoughsuch instructions do not reduce the CRE per semdashin termsof altering the response criterion selectively for other-racefacesmdashthey nonetheless have the potential to reduce falseidentifications

References

[1] M Boyce J L Beaudry and R C L Lindsay ldquoBelief ofeyewitness identification evidencerdquo inMemory for People R CL Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 501ndash525 ErlbaumMahwah NJ USA 2007

[2] B H Bornstein S OrsquoBryant and D Zickafoose ldquoIntuitionsabout arousal and eyewitness memory effects on mock jurorsrsquojudgmentsrdquo Law and Psychology Review vol 32 pp 109ndash1332008

[3] T M S Neal A Christiansen B H Bornstein and T RRobicheaux ldquoThe effects of mock jurorsrsquo beliefs about eyewit-ness performance on trial judgmentsrdquo Psychology Crime andLaw vol 18 no 1 pp 49ndash64 2012

[4] G LWells AMemon and S D Penrod ldquoEyewitness evidenceimproving its probative valuerdquo Psychological Science in thePublic Interest Supplement vol 7 no 2 pp 45ndash75 2006

[5] G LWells M Small S Penrod R SMalpass SM Fulero andC A E Brimacombe ldquoEyewitness identification proceduresrecommendations for lineups and photospreadsrdquo Law andHuman Behavior vol 22 no 6 pp 603ndash647 1998

[6] J C Brigham ldquoThe role of race and racial prejudice inrecognizing other peoplerdquo in Motivational Aspects of Prejudiceand Racism C Willis-Esqueda Ed pp 68ndash110 Springer NewYork NY USA 2008

[7] J C Brigham L B Bennett C A Meissner and T L MitchellldquoThe influence of race on eyewitness memoryrdquo in Memory forPeople R C L Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P TogliaEds vol 2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 257ndash282Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2007

[8] C A Meissner and J C Brigham ldquoThirty years of investigatingthe own-race bias in memory for faces a meta-analytic reviewrdquoPsychology Public Policy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 3ndash35 2001

[9] D J Kelly S Liu L Ge et al ldquoCross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the african versus caucasian contrastin 3-month-old infantsrdquo Infancy vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2007

[10] K Pezdek I Blandon-Gitlin and C Moore ldquoChildrenrsquos facerecognition memory more evidence for the cross-race effectrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology vol 88 no 4 pp 760ndash763 2003

[11] J C Brigham and N L Williamson ldquoCross-racial recognitionand age when yoursquore over 60 do they still lsquoall look alikersquordquoPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 5 pp 218ndash2221979

[12] J Abshire and B H Bornstein ldquoJuror sensitivity to the cross-race effectrdquo Law and Human Behavior vol 27 no 5 pp 471ndash480 2003

[13] S L Sporer ldquoRecognizing faces of other ethnic groups anintegration of theoriesrdquo Psychology Public Policy and Law vol7 no 1 pp 36ndash97 2001

[14] J C Brigham and R S Malpass ldquoThe role of experience andcontact in the recognition of faces of own- and other- racepersonsrdquo Journal of Social Issues vol 41 no 3 pp 139ndash155 1985

[15] P Chiroro and T Valentine ldquoAn investigation of the contacthypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognitionrdquo QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology A vol 48 pp 879ndash894 1995

[16] O H MacLin B R van Sickler M K MacLin and A Li ldquoA re-examination of the cross-race effect the role of race inversionand basketball triviardquo North American Journal of Psychologyvol 6 pp 189ndash204 2004

[17] K J Susa C A Meissner and H D Heer ldquoModeling the role ofsocial-cognitive processes in the recognition of own-and other-race facesrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 4 pp 523ndash537 2010

[18] W Ng and R C L Lindsay ldquoCross-Race facial recognitionfailure of the contact hypothesisrdquo Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology vol 25 pp 217ndash232 1994

[19] J R Evans J L Marcon and C A Meissner ldquoCross-raciallineup identification assessing the potential benefits of contextreinstatementrdquo Psychology Crime and Law vol 15 no 1 pp 19ndash28 2009

[20] K Hugenberg J Miller and H M Claypool ldquoCategorizationand individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit toward asolution to an insidious problemrdquo Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology vol 43 no 2 pp 334ndash340 2007

[21] C A Meissner J C Brigham and D A Butz ldquoMemory forown- and other-race faces a dual-process approachrdquo AppliedCognitive Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 545ndash567 2005

[22] D T Levin ldquoRace as a visual feature using visual search andperceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categoriesand the cross-race recognition deficitrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General vol 129 no 4 pp 559ndash574 2000

[23] P J Hills and M B Lewis ldquoReducing the own-race bias inface recognition by shifting attentionrdquo Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology vol 59 no 6 pp 996ndash1002 2006

[24] S D Goldinger Y He andM H Papesh ldquoDeficits in cross-raceface learning insights from eye movements and pupillometryrdquoJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory andCognition vol 35 no 5 pp 1105ndash1122 2009

[25] J W Shepherd and J B Deregowski ldquoRaces and facesmdashacomparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans tofaces of the same and different racesrdquo British Journal of SocialPsychology vol 20 no 2 pp 125ndash133 1981

[26] C Michel B Rossion J Han C S Chung and R CaldaraldquoHolistic processing is finely tuned for faces of onersquos own racerdquoPsychological Science vol 17 no 7 pp 608ndash615 2006

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

4 Journal of Criminology

stimuli Thus all participants saw the same other-race faceswhich were Black Own-race faces were White for the Whiteparticipants and Hispanic for the Hispanic participantsSecond participants received control instructions (119899 = 67)special CRE instructions prior to encoding (119899 = 67) orspecial instructions prior to retrieval (119899 = 69) CRE-encodingparticipants were given the instructions from Hugenberg etal [20] before the encoding phaseThe instructions informedthem that ldquoPrevious research has shown that people reliablyshow what is known as the Cross-Race Effect (CRE) whenlearning faces Basically people tend to confuse faces thatbelong to other races For example a White learner will tendto mistake one Black face for another Now that you knowthis we would like you to try especially hard when learningfaces in this task that happen to be of a different race Do yourbest to try to pay close attention to what differentiates oneparticular face from another face of the same race especiallywhen that face is not of the same race as you Rememberpay very close attention to the faces especially when theyare of a different race than you in order to try to avoid thisCross-Race Effectrdquo CRE-retrieval participants were given thesame instructions except that they came prior to retrieval(accordingly ldquolearningrdquo was changed to ldquorecognizingrdquo andldquolearnerrdquo was changed to ldquoparticipantrdquo) Thus the designfor the study was a 2 (target face race own versus other) times3 (instructions control versus CRE-encoding versus CRE-retrieval) mixed design with target face race being a within-subject factor and instructions being a between groups factor

32 Results The results from both universities followedthe same pattern so the data were combined for analysis(see Table 2) There was a main effect of target race ondiscrimination F (1 200) = 2819 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 12

Participants were significantly better at discriminating ldquooldrdquofrom ldquonewrdquo own-race faces (119872 = 96 SD = 68) than theywere for other-race faces (119872 = 69 SD = 55) There was nomain effect of instructions on 1198891015840 F (2 200) = 014 119875 = 87120578119901

2= 002 nor an interaction between instructions and

target race F (2 200) = 023 119875 = 79 120578119901

2= 002

There was a main effect of target race on response biasF (1 200) = 2013 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2= 09 Participants had

a significantly higher (ie more conservative) criterion forown- (119872 = 17 SD = 47) than for other-race faces (119872 = 03SD = 46) There was also a significant effect of instructiontype on response bias F (1 200) = 1230 119875 lt 01 120578

119901

2=

06 the response criterion was higher in the CRE-retrievalcondition (119872 = 20 SE = 05) than both the controlcondition (119872 = 03 SE = 05) and the CRE-encodingcondition (119872 = 05 SE = 05) the latter two conditions didnot differThere was no interaction between instructions andtarget race on response criterion F (1 200) = 073 119875 = 48120578119901

2= 007

4 General Discussion

Consistent with previous research on the CRE participantsin both experiments were better at recognizing own-racethan other-race faces (eg [8]) The CRE was manifested in

Table 2Mean (with SD) discrimination (1198891015840) and response criterion(119862) as a function of instructions and target race Experiment 2

Own race Other race Total1198891015840

Control 95 (63) 63 (48) 79CRE-encoding 98 (67) 70 (62) 84CRE-retrieval 97 (72) 71 (55) 85Total 96 (68) 69 (55)119862

Control 11 (50) minus05 (37) 03CRE-encoding 15 (46) minus05 (46) 05CRE-retrieval 25 (45) 16 (50) 20Total 17 (47) 03 (46)

terms of both better discrimination and a more conservativeresponse criterion for own-race faces and it was obtained forboth White participants (Experiments 1 and 2) and Hispanicparticipants (Experiment 2) Thus as previous research hasdemonstrated [8] the CRE is a very robust effect

Attempts at utilizing instructions to reduce the CREhave generally not proven to be successful [6] In thepresent experiments instructing participants on the CRE andencouraging them to be cautious when identifying other-race faces was successful in one sense yet unsuccessful inanother senseThe retrieval instructions were effective in thatthey made participants more conservative thereby reducingfalse alarmsAlthough amore conservative response criterionwould also reduce hits the American criminal justice systemis set up in such a way that most would consider that adesirable tradeoff (ie it is better to let a guilty party gofree than to identify falsely and possibly convict an innocentperson see generally [39])

Instructing participants on the CRE prior to retrieval wasless successful in the sense that it did not reduce the CREthat is it did not improve performance selectively for other-race faces As the instruction came after the faces had alreadybeen encodedwe did not expect it to improve discriminationhowever we did expect it to change the response criterionmore for other-race than for own-race faces yet it failedto do so As in other sorts of recognition task [32 33]identification instructions are capable of moving witnessesrsquoresponse criterion up or down but it is difficult to findinstructions or lineup procedures more generally that haveselective effects [34 39] The inability of instructions at thetime of retrieval to moderate the CRE indirectly supportsthe importance of encoding processes in producing the CRE(eg [17 21] Although differential encoding of faces is lesssusceptible to intervention by the criminal justice systemthan would be differential retrieval processes it is possiblethat high-frequency witnesses could nonetheless be trainedto encode other-race faces more effectively [6 20 23]

Experiment 2 failed to replicate Hugenberg et alrsquos [20]finding regarding the effectiveness of special instructions atencoding The experiment was not significantly underpow-ered In a preliminary power analysis we used the smallesteffect size for 1198891015840 (119903 = 19) obtained by Hugenberg et al and

Journal of Criminology 5

found that for a power of 8 we would need approximately 191participants to reveal a significant interaction between race(own versus other) and instructions Experiment 2 includeddata from 182 participants (the original sample contained 203participants but 21 participants of other races were dropped)An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings is thatwe used different photos of the same individual at encodingand retrieval (ie a face recognition task) whereas theprevious study used the identical photos at encoding andretrieval (ie amemory task)We used a face recognition taskbecause it is more forensically valid in the real world targetsdo not look identical (in terms of clothing hair pose etc) atencoding and retrieval Although many eyewitness phenom-ena hold across variations in the realism of the experimentaltask [40] future research should ascertain whether encodinginstructions would be effective in forensically valid contexts

In conclusion the present experiments show that itis possible to raise eyewitnessesrsquo response criterionmdashandthereby reduce the false alarm ratemdashby providing themwith instructions about the CRE and exhorting them tobe cautious when making identification decisions Althoughsuch instructions do not reduce the CRE per semdashin termsof altering the response criterion selectively for other-racefacesmdashthey nonetheless have the potential to reduce falseidentifications

References

[1] M Boyce J L Beaudry and R C L Lindsay ldquoBelief ofeyewitness identification evidencerdquo inMemory for People R CL Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 501ndash525 ErlbaumMahwah NJ USA 2007

[2] B H Bornstein S OrsquoBryant and D Zickafoose ldquoIntuitionsabout arousal and eyewitness memory effects on mock jurorsrsquojudgmentsrdquo Law and Psychology Review vol 32 pp 109ndash1332008

[3] T M S Neal A Christiansen B H Bornstein and T RRobicheaux ldquoThe effects of mock jurorsrsquo beliefs about eyewit-ness performance on trial judgmentsrdquo Psychology Crime andLaw vol 18 no 1 pp 49ndash64 2012

[4] G LWells AMemon and S D Penrod ldquoEyewitness evidenceimproving its probative valuerdquo Psychological Science in thePublic Interest Supplement vol 7 no 2 pp 45ndash75 2006

[5] G LWells M Small S Penrod R SMalpass SM Fulero andC A E Brimacombe ldquoEyewitness identification proceduresrecommendations for lineups and photospreadsrdquo Law andHuman Behavior vol 22 no 6 pp 603ndash647 1998

[6] J C Brigham ldquoThe role of race and racial prejudice inrecognizing other peoplerdquo in Motivational Aspects of Prejudiceand Racism C Willis-Esqueda Ed pp 68ndash110 Springer NewYork NY USA 2008

[7] J C Brigham L B Bennett C A Meissner and T L MitchellldquoThe influence of race on eyewitness memoryrdquo in Memory forPeople R C L Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P TogliaEds vol 2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 257ndash282Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2007

[8] C A Meissner and J C Brigham ldquoThirty years of investigatingthe own-race bias in memory for faces a meta-analytic reviewrdquoPsychology Public Policy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 3ndash35 2001

[9] D J Kelly S Liu L Ge et al ldquoCross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the african versus caucasian contrastin 3-month-old infantsrdquo Infancy vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2007

[10] K Pezdek I Blandon-Gitlin and C Moore ldquoChildrenrsquos facerecognition memory more evidence for the cross-race effectrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology vol 88 no 4 pp 760ndash763 2003

[11] J C Brigham and N L Williamson ldquoCross-racial recognitionand age when yoursquore over 60 do they still lsquoall look alikersquordquoPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 5 pp 218ndash2221979

[12] J Abshire and B H Bornstein ldquoJuror sensitivity to the cross-race effectrdquo Law and Human Behavior vol 27 no 5 pp 471ndash480 2003

[13] S L Sporer ldquoRecognizing faces of other ethnic groups anintegration of theoriesrdquo Psychology Public Policy and Law vol7 no 1 pp 36ndash97 2001

[14] J C Brigham and R S Malpass ldquoThe role of experience andcontact in the recognition of faces of own- and other- racepersonsrdquo Journal of Social Issues vol 41 no 3 pp 139ndash155 1985

[15] P Chiroro and T Valentine ldquoAn investigation of the contacthypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognitionrdquo QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology A vol 48 pp 879ndash894 1995

[16] O H MacLin B R van Sickler M K MacLin and A Li ldquoA re-examination of the cross-race effect the role of race inversionand basketball triviardquo North American Journal of Psychologyvol 6 pp 189ndash204 2004

[17] K J Susa C A Meissner and H D Heer ldquoModeling the role ofsocial-cognitive processes in the recognition of own-and other-race facesrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 4 pp 523ndash537 2010

[18] W Ng and R C L Lindsay ldquoCross-Race facial recognitionfailure of the contact hypothesisrdquo Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology vol 25 pp 217ndash232 1994

[19] J R Evans J L Marcon and C A Meissner ldquoCross-raciallineup identification assessing the potential benefits of contextreinstatementrdquo Psychology Crime and Law vol 15 no 1 pp 19ndash28 2009

[20] K Hugenberg J Miller and H M Claypool ldquoCategorizationand individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit toward asolution to an insidious problemrdquo Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology vol 43 no 2 pp 334ndash340 2007

[21] C A Meissner J C Brigham and D A Butz ldquoMemory forown- and other-race faces a dual-process approachrdquo AppliedCognitive Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 545ndash567 2005

[22] D T Levin ldquoRace as a visual feature using visual search andperceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categoriesand the cross-race recognition deficitrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General vol 129 no 4 pp 559ndash574 2000

[23] P J Hills and M B Lewis ldquoReducing the own-race bias inface recognition by shifting attentionrdquo Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology vol 59 no 6 pp 996ndash1002 2006

[24] S D Goldinger Y He andM H Papesh ldquoDeficits in cross-raceface learning insights from eye movements and pupillometryrdquoJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory andCognition vol 35 no 5 pp 1105ndash1122 2009

[25] J W Shepherd and J B Deregowski ldquoRaces and facesmdashacomparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans tofaces of the same and different racesrdquo British Journal of SocialPsychology vol 20 no 2 pp 125ndash133 1981

[26] C Michel B Rossion J Han C S Chung and R CaldaraldquoHolistic processing is finely tuned for faces of onersquos own racerdquoPsychological Science vol 17 no 7 pp 608ndash615 2006

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of Criminology 5

found that for a power of 8 we would need approximately 191participants to reveal a significant interaction between race(own versus other) and instructions Experiment 2 includeddata from 182 participants (the original sample contained 203participants but 21 participants of other races were dropped)An alternative explanation for the discrepant findings is thatwe used different photos of the same individual at encodingand retrieval (ie a face recognition task) whereas theprevious study used the identical photos at encoding andretrieval (ie amemory task)We used a face recognition taskbecause it is more forensically valid in the real world targetsdo not look identical (in terms of clothing hair pose etc) atencoding and retrieval Although many eyewitness phenom-ena hold across variations in the realism of the experimentaltask [40] future research should ascertain whether encodinginstructions would be effective in forensically valid contexts

In conclusion the present experiments show that itis possible to raise eyewitnessesrsquo response criterionmdashandthereby reduce the false alarm ratemdashby providing themwith instructions about the CRE and exhorting them tobe cautious when making identification decisions Althoughsuch instructions do not reduce the CRE per semdashin termsof altering the response criterion selectively for other-racefacesmdashthey nonetheless have the potential to reduce falseidentifications

References

[1] M Boyce J L Beaudry and R C L Lindsay ldquoBelief ofeyewitness identification evidencerdquo inMemory for People R CL Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 501ndash525 ErlbaumMahwah NJ USA 2007

[2] B H Bornstein S OrsquoBryant and D Zickafoose ldquoIntuitionsabout arousal and eyewitness memory effects on mock jurorsrsquojudgmentsrdquo Law and Psychology Review vol 32 pp 109ndash1332008

[3] T M S Neal A Christiansen B H Bornstein and T RRobicheaux ldquoThe effects of mock jurorsrsquo beliefs about eyewit-ness performance on trial judgmentsrdquo Psychology Crime andLaw vol 18 no 1 pp 49ndash64 2012

[4] G LWells AMemon and S D Penrod ldquoEyewitness evidenceimproving its probative valuerdquo Psychological Science in thePublic Interest Supplement vol 7 no 2 pp 45ndash75 2006

[5] G LWells M Small S Penrod R SMalpass SM Fulero andC A E Brimacombe ldquoEyewitness identification proceduresrecommendations for lineups and photospreadsrdquo Law andHuman Behavior vol 22 no 6 pp 603ndash647 1998

[6] J C Brigham ldquoThe role of race and racial prejudice inrecognizing other peoplerdquo in Motivational Aspects of Prejudiceand Racism C Willis-Esqueda Ed pp 68ndash110 Springer NewYork NY USA 2008

[7] J C Brigham L B Bennett C A Meissner and T L MitchellldquoThe influence of race on eyewitness memoryrdquo in Memory forPeople R C L Lindsay D F Ross J D Read and M P TogliaEds vol 2 of Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology pp 257ndash282Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2007

[8] C A Meissner and J C Brigham ldquoThirty years of investigatingthe own-race bias in memory for faces a meta-analytic reviewrdquoPsychology Public Policy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 3ndash35 2001

[9] D J Kelly S Liu L Ge et al ldquoCross-race preferences for same-race faces extend beyond the african versus caucasian contrastin 3-month-old infantsrdquo Infancy vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2007

[10] K Pezdek I Blandon-Gitlin and C Moore ldquoChildrenrsquos facerecognition memory more evidence for the cross-race effectrdquoJournal of Applied Psychology vol 88 no 4 pp 760ndash763 2003

[11] J C Brigham and N L Williamson ldquoCross-racial recognitionand age when yoursquore over 60 do they still lsquoall look alikersquordquoPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin vol 5 pp 218ndash2221979

[12] J Abshire and B H Bornstein ldquoJuror sensitivity to the cross-race effectrdquo Law and Human Behavior vol 27 no 5 pp 471ndash480 2003

[13] S L Sporer ldquoRecognizing faces of other ethnic groups anintegration of theoriesrdquo Psychology Public Policy and Law vol7 no 1 pp 36ndash97 2001

[14] J C Brigham and R S Malpass ldquoThe role of experience andcontact in the recognition of faces of own- and other- racepersonsrdquo Journal of Social Issues vol 41 no 3 pp 139ndash155 1985

[15] P Chiroro and T Valentine ldquoAn investigation of the contacthypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognitionrdquo QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology A vol 48 pp 879ndash894 1995

[16] O H MacLin B R van Sickler M K MacLin and A Li ldquoA re-examination of the cross-race effect the role of race inversionand basketball triviardquo North American Journal of Psychologyvol 6 pp 189ndash204 2004

[17] K J Susa C A Meissner and H D Heer ldquoModeling the role ofsocial-cognitive processes in the recognition of own-and other-race facesrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 4 pp 523ndash537 2010

[18] W Ng and R C L Lindsay ldquoCross-Race facial recognitionfailure of the contact hypothesisrdquo Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology vol 25 pp 217ndash232 1994

[19] J R Evans J L Marcon and C A Meissner ldquoCross-raciallineup identification assessing the potential benefits of contextreinstatementrdquo Psychology Crime and Law vol 15 no 1 pp 19ndash28 2009

[20] K Hugenberg J Miller and H M Claypool ldquoCategorizationand individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit toward asolution to an insidious problemrdquo Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology vol 43 no 2 pp 334ndash340 2007

[21] C A Meissner J C Brigham and D A Butz ldquoMemory forown- and other-race faces a dual-process approachrdquo AppliedCognitive Psychology vol 19 no 5 pp 545ndash567 2005

[22] D T Levin ldquoRace as a visual feature using visual search andperceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categoriesand the cross-race recognition deficitrdquo Journal of ExperimentalPsychology General vol 129 no 4 pp 559ndash574 2000

[23] P J Hills and M B Lewis ldquoReducing the own-race bias inface recognition by shifting attentionrdquo Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology vol 59 no 6 pp 996ndash1002 2006

[24] S D Goldinger Y He andM H Papesh ldquoDeficits in cross-raceface learning insights from eye movements and pupillometryrdquoJournal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory andCognition vol 35 no 5 pp 1105ndash1122 2009

[25] J W Shepherd and J B Deregowski ldquoRaces and facesmdashacomparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans tofaces of the same and different racesrdquo British Journal of SocialPsychology vol 20 no 2 pp 125ndash133 1981

[26] C Michel B Rossion J Han C S Chung and R CaldaraldquoHolistic processing is finely tuned for faces of onersquos own racerdquoPsychological Science vol 17 no 7 pp 608ndash615 2006

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

6 Journal of Criminology

[27] S G YoungM J Bernstein andKHugenberg ldquoWhendo own-group biases in face recognition occur encoding versus post-encodingrdquo Social Cognition vol 28 no 2 pp 240ndash250 2010

[28] J L Marcon K J Susa and C A Meissner ldquoAssessing theinfluence of recollection and familiarity in memory for own-versus other-race facesrdquo Psychonomic Bulletin and Review vol16 no 1 pp 99ndash103 2009

[29] P Barkowitz and J C Brigham ldquoRecognition of faces own-race bias incentive and time delayrdquo Journal of Applied SocialPsychology vol 18 pp 296ndash301 1982

[30] O H MacLin M K MacLin and R S Malpass ldquoRacearousal attention exposure and delay an examination offactors moderating face recognitionrdquo Psychology Public Policyand Law vol 7 no 1 pp 134ndash152 2001

[31] A E Slone J C Brigham and C A Meissner ldquoSocial andcognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in whitesrdquo Basicand Applied Social Psychology vol 22 no 2 pp 71ndash84 2000

[32] E Hirshman ldquoDecision processes in recognition memorycriterion shifts and the list-strength paradigmrdquo Journal ofExperimental Psychology LearningMemory andCognition vol21 no 2 pp 302ndash313 1995

[33] N AMacmillan andC D CreelmanDetectionTheory AUserrsquosGuide Erlbaum Mahwah NJ USA 2nd edition 2005

[34] S E Clark ldquoA re-examination of the effects of biased lineupinstructions in eyewitness identificationrdquo Law and HumanBehavior vol 29 no 4 pp 395ndash424 2005

[35] G L Wells ldquoApplied eyewitness-testimony research systemvariables and estimator variablesrdquo Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology vol 36 no 12 pp 1546ndash1557 1978

[36] G LWells and E A Olson ldquoThe other-race effect in eyewitnessidentification what do we do about itrdquo Psychology PublicPolicy and Law vol 7 no 1 pp 230ndash246 2001

[37] R A Foster T M Libkuman J W Schooler and E F Lof-tus ldquoConsequentiality and eyewitness person identificationrdquoApplied Cognitive Psychology vol 8 no 2 pp 107ndash121 1994

[38] M Ramirez ldquoMulticulturalmultiracial experience inventoryrdquoin MulticulturalMultiracial Psychology Mestizo Perspectives inPersonality and Mental Health M Ramirez Ed pp 245ndash254Jason Aronson Northvale NJ USA 1998

[39] S E Clark ldquoCosts and benefits of eyewitness identificationreform psychological science and public policyrdquo Perspectives onPsychological Science vol 7 no 3 pp 238ndash259 2012

[40] S D Penrod and B H Bornstein ldquoGeneralizing eyewitnessreliability researchrdquo in Memory for People R C L Lindsay DF Ross J D Read and M P Toglia Eds vol 2 of Handbookof Eyewitness Psychology pp 529ndash556 Erlbaum Mahwah NJUSA 2007

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Geography JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Education

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Economics Research International

ArchaeologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

ISRN Geriatrics

Volume 2013Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

CriminologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2013

Biomedical EducationJournal of

ISRN Nursing

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

NursingResearch and Practice

ISRN Economics

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Urban Studies Research

AnthropologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Journal of AddictionHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Population ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

ISRN Addiction

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013

Education Research International

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013