CLASSIFYING FACES BY RACE : THE STRUCTURE OF FACE CATEGORIES

This article explored the finding that cross-race (CR) faces are more quickly classified by race than same race (SR) faces. T. Valentine and M. Endo (1992) modeled this effect by assuming that face categories can be explained on the basis of node activations in a multidimensional exemplar space. Therefore, variations in exemplar density between and within face categories explain both facilitated classification of CR faces and the relationship between typicality and classification RT within face categories. The present findings from classification and visual search tasks suggest that speeded classification of CR faces is instead caused by a quickly coded race feature that marks CR but not SR faces. Also, systematic manipulations of facial typicality cause no variation in classifiability aside from slowed classification of very distinctive faces. These results suggest that the exemplar model cannot explain important aspects of face classification. Although face perception is usually studied from the standpoint of our amazing ability to differentiate a large number of faces, representations of face categories are also important. The process of categorizing individual faces has a number of implications both for general models of classification and for understanding face identification. The focus here is on the apparently paradoxical finding that participants are faster to classify faces they have difficulty recognizing. In the present case, this means that White participants classify Black or Asian faces faster than White faces (Levin, 1989; Valentine & Endo, 1992). In attempting to understand facilitated classification of cross-race faces (hereinafter referred to as the CR [cross-race] classification advantage), the present research considers explanations for the CR classification advantage as they relate to the basic structure of face categories, both in terms of discrimination between categories and in terms of their internal structure. Three explanations for the CR classification advantage are tested here. The first, stemming from Valentine's (1991) multidimensional space framework, places the advantage in the context of an exemplar model of face classification and recognition. This model uses simple assumptions based on

[1]  R. Yin,et al.  Face recognition by brain-injured patients: a dissociable ability? , 1970, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  J. Read,et al.  Effects of Uniqueness, Sex of Subject, and Sex of Photograph on Facial Recognition , 1974 .

[3]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Gordon Rae Table of A′ , 1976 .

[5]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  S. Carey,et al.  From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. , 1977, Science.

[7]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[8]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[9]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[10]  D. Homa,et al.  Limitations of exemplar-based generalization and the abstraction of categorical information. , 1981 .

[11]  J. Omohundro Recognition vs. classification of ill-defined category exemplars , 1981 .

[12]  Sharon Lee Armstrong,et al.  What some concepts might not be , 1983, Cognition.

[13]  R. Nosofsky American Psychological Association, Inc. Choice, Similarity, and the Context Theory of Classification , 2022 .

[14]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[15]  S. Bem,et al.  If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. , 1985 .

[16]  O. John,et al.  Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. , 1985 .

[17]  T Valentine,et al.  The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. , 1986, Acta psychologica.

[18]  A. W. Carroo,et al.  Other Race Recognition: A Comparison of Black American and African Subjects , 1986, Perceptual and motor skills.

[19]  V. Bruce,et al.  Recognizing familiar faces: the role of distinctiveness and familiarity. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[20]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  S. Penrod,et al.  Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. , 1986 .

[22]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  Dennis C. Hay,et al.  Configural information in face recognition , 1987 .

[24]  H. Pashler,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  A. Young,et al.  Configurational Information in Face Perception , 1987, Perception.

[26]  V Bruce,et al.  Feature Saliency in Judging the Sex and Familiarity of Faces , 1988, Perception.

[27]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[28]  Categorization of familiar persons from their names: A case of interference , 1989 .

[29]  D L Medin,et al.  Concepts and conceptual structure. , 1989, The American psychologist.

[30]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[31]  P. Salovey,et al.  Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: empirical evidence and a computer simulation. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: Implications for the recognition of natural images , 1991 .

[34]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. , 1991 .

[35]  T. Valentine The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology a Unified Account of the Effects of Distinctiveness, Inversion, and Race in Face Recognition , 2022 .

[36]  S. Carey Becoming a face expert. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[37]  T. Valentine,et al.  Towards an Exemplar Model of Face Processing: The Effects of Race and Distinctiveness , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[38]  S. Bem,et al.  The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality , 1993 .

[39]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[40]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[41]  G. Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.

[42]  J Theeuwes,et al.  Visual selective attention: a theoretical analysis. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[43]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[44]  J. Wolfe Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli , 1994, Vision Research.

[45]  H. Ellis,et al.  Age Effects in the Processing of Typical and Distinctive Faces , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[46]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  FACIAL ORGANIZATION BLOCKS ACCESS TO LOW-LEVEL FEATURES: AN OBJECT INFERIORITY EFFECT , 1995 .

[47]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.