The idea of own-race bias effect has been a subject of research in the social science field. Many researchers have improvised different study analysis to understand the distinct elements that form the kind of biasness exhibited in the subject. Meissner " Brigham (2001) investigates this biasness concerning the memory of faces while Chiroro and Valentine (2007) explore the scenario by emphasizing on face recognition. Walker et al. further advances the biasness in Social Contact and Other-race Face processing in the Human Brain. Similarly, Wright et al., (2007) conduct a Study of Own-race Bias by sampling specimens in market centers in South Africa and England. Lastly, McKone et al., (2004) measure other races and the impacts of ethnicity using the Cambridge Face Memory Test Format. All these attempts seek to explain the basis of race biasness, which forms the roots of one’s own identity. This research paper is, therefore, a blueprint of in-depth analysis of the various methodologies, experiments and discourse analysis of the Own-Race Bias Effect that is summarized from previous scholarly works as well as provable experiments. In addition, it compares and contrasts various methodologies used herein.
Key words: own-race, bias, face
Introduction
In the contemporary society in which we live, every person belongs to a specific race or a blend of races. Sometimes, the issues pertaining racism can be so extreme to reflect biasness and prejudice against particular persons. No wonder there are many cases of racism and tribalism in the corridors of justice, which revolve around scorn and contempt. There is a general perception of superiority in which each race distinguishes itself superior to the other in matters technological advancement, social beliefs, political narratives and economic endowments. While international organizations have put measures to curb issues relating to negative racism, it is important to note that racism offers every person a sense of belonging and unique identity, which is distinct from others in the world. It the reason the world appreciates the whites, Negroes, the Blacks, Indians, Asians and the mixed colours just to highlight a few of them. However, social researchers have proven that there is a natural biasness in race identification when one is tasked to identify individuals he or she might have met before. It shows that a person can easily identify a person he or she had seen before who belongs to his or her race than he would do to a person to a person of the race. This research paper will establish and analyse some experiments concerning race-bias; the methodologies such as Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT) employed as well as a review on past research papers based on the textbooks, articles, and journals that cover the topic. The reason for this research is to proceed with the Australian contestants to build normative standards of performance when using the original CFMT with white American faces and the upgraded structure of the CFMT with the Australian and East Asian faces. Equally, it will proceed with unfulfilled parts of McKone et al. (2012) especially on contact levels with other races: to find out if it contributes to the own-race bias effect.
The diversity of man’s societal acts depicts the involvements of many social predicators with fundamental nerve functionalities that are vital in the view of social indicators (Adolphs, 2001). Similarly, Carroo (1987) argues that social experiences are essential in determining how easy it is to identify a recognizable face just like in identifying one’s race as opposed to the other races (Walker " Hewstone, 2006). Face perception is a natural way of identifying a person and contributes much to interpersonal communication. A lot of interest is laid on the neural basis of the face awareness indicating that there exists an area of the brain whose duty entails recording faces in the central point of the gyrus. Face stimuli have arguably shown more establishments than any other substance (Segent et al., 1992).
In ordinary laboratory ORB study, the contestants are presented with a big number of distinct racial origins. After some time, a bigger number than the previous one is unveiled consisting of additional members not present in the first exhibition who are called the fillers or distracters or foils. For every face, contestants are tasked to identify the person if they had seen them before or not. Interestingly, a big congregation of the specimen gives the research more credibility as it permits the researcher to evaluate cognoscibility among the faces (Wright, 2001).
Wright (2001) illustrates an example experimented in market centers in South Africa and England where different races approached each other. A total of 201 participants were selected for the course in which in Johannesburg 50 blacks and 50 whites were sampled while in Bristol, England 43 Blacks and 58 whites were identified for the experiment. Also, four people were used as specimens both in both countries. The contestants were shop subordinates who were met by the specimen in retail centres in the respective countries. The Confederates then asked the participants questions such as “excuse me, do you have the time?” This was done with attempts to maintain eye contacts alongside selective deviations from the guide to keep a smooth conversational flow. After some time, they were tasked to figure out the associates first by a chronological line-up, where the photos were identified one after the other, and secondly, forced-choice identification test, where the photos are viewed concurrently. Eminent in the two countries, the associates were largely identified by persons of their races. The results shown from two countries distinct of demographics and beliefs showed the great extent of own race bias ideology. Similarly, the contestants ease in identifying the Confederates were seen to be alike more so when the contestant was the same race as the contemporaries. In many cases, eyewitness accounts research reflects on matters in which non-guilty persons have been selected although other challenges may accompany it. An assessment of line-ups in England’s capital demonstrated that percentage in the estimates of 40% of the era; no recognition was achieved (Wright " McDaid, 1996). It can be deduced that in most cases the suspects were culpable, but because no right recognition was done, it was difficult to make them answerable. It is the reason eye-witness researchers emphasize that just like a right recognition may not necessarily show guilt, the inability to recognize may not symbolize innocence.
The CFMT has both the pros and cons concerning archival and laboratory-based experiments. About archival studies, the study offered more experimental restrictions which then allow one to make fundamentals conclusions. Contrary, the selected recognition accuracy is just one, that is, a man interrogating a shop attendant about an unfamiliar person in a shopping center (Wright, 1998). In comparison to laboratory studies, CFMT became more economically authentic because the task looked like the kind of events in which police detectors are concerned with many reasons: First, the selection was not limited to college scholars; secondly, the contestants did not realize their positions as participants when they interacted with the Confederates. Thirdly, the events were more like related to one intending to shoplift and fourthly, the participants were asked of just a person. The biggest disadvantage is that it used four confederates only which then proves harder to group all probable black and white confederates who may have been involved because increasing the number would have been impossible.
Chiroro " Valentine (2007) attempt to investigate own race biasness based on contact hypothesis in the face recognition using a cross-cultural design in which four assemblies of subjects were investigated for their ability to recognize specific own-race and the other races. The most important focus of the research was to evaluate the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face identification and find out whether the results of identification of faces is dependent on the race of an individual, the contact group, and the race. The anticipated cross-over relation between the races of the person in question and that of the face was vital in all three categories of recognition. A black person was visibly more accurate in identifying fellow blacks than they would to the whites just like the whites to fellow whites and vice versa. Hence, a distinct own-race bias in face identification was realized among parties if both races.
Meissner " Brigham (2001) tries to investigate the Own-race Bias in Memory for faces in which they find out that faces of own-race are easier to remember in comparison to faces of people from other less familiar faces. Data was scrutinized from 39 research writings, incorporating 91 samples and bringing together nearly 5000 participants. Levels of hit and fake alarm intervals as well as those of prejudiced precision and criteria for response were incorporated. The result designated a “mirror effect” style in which distinct races offered a greater percentage of strikes and a lower percentage of sham alarms. This was seen as well with distinct ORB which showed selective accuracy and response pattern.
In conclusion, the results openly support the reality of own-race biasness in face recognition. All the methods used indicate that individuals easily identify persons of their races irrespective of the cover-up methods used to identify the subject. This is further highlighted in the sense that permanent memories created from the very first people that a person meets in his environment and thus shape as well his or her opinions.
References
Adolphs, R. (2001). The neurobiology of social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 231–9.
Carroo, A.W. (1987). Recognition of faces as a function of race, attitudes, and reported cross racial friendships. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 319–25
Chiroro, P., " Valentine, T. (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section. A, 48(4), 879-894.
McKone, E., Stokes, S., Liu, J., Cohan, S., Fiorentini, C., Pidcock, M., ... " Pelleg, M. (2012). A robust method of measuring other-race and other-ethnicity effects: The Cambridge Face Memory
Meissner, C. A., " Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias `in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3. psychology (pp. 97-116). Hove, England: Erlbaum.
Sergent, J., Ohta, S., MacDonald, B. (1992). Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. Brain, 115, 15–36.
Walker, P. M., Silvert, L., Hewstone, M., " Nobre, A. C. (2007). Social contact and other-race face processing in the human brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 16-25.
Walker, P.M., Hewstone, M. (2006). A perceptual discrimination investigation of the own-race effect and intergroup experience. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 41–75.
Wright, D. B. (1998). People, materials and situations. In J. A. Nunn (Ed.), Laboratory psychology (pp. 97-116). Hove, England: Erlbaum.
Wright, D. B., " McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., " Tredoux, C. G. (2001). A field study of own-race bias in South Africa and England. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 119.
