Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Effects of encoding tasks on the own-age face recognition bias

  • Jason L. Randall
    ,
  • ,
  • Aisha M. Aguilera
    ,
  • Jeffrey S. Anastasi(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Kendra V. Valk
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Sam Houston State University
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

In the current study, we evaluated the own-age face recognition bias by using various encoding tasks to evaluate the robustness and potential limitations of the own-age bias. One hundred sixty young adults studied photographs of children, young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults and were assigned to one of four encoding conditions (i.e., age estimate, attractiveness rating, friendliness rating, and a face search task). Subsequent recognition tests revealed a robust own-age bias such that participants recognized own-age faces better than other-age faces regardless of encoding task. The current study showed that encoding tasks that focus on socially relevant characteristics (i.e., attractiveness ratings and friendliness ratings) do not eliminate or weaken the own-age bias compared to tasks that specifically focus on the age of the face. These findings indicate that in-group/out-group categorization requires little conscious processing and may be automatic, which is consistent with Sporer's (2001) in-group/out-group model (IOM) of facial processing.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 55-67 (13 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of General Psychology (Volume 139, Issue 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 04/01/2012

Publication status

Published - 04/01/2012

ISSN

0022-1309

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 84859785447
  • PubMed: 24836909

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
Author count
5
SciVal
citations
2
SciVal
Paper percentile
40
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.20
Fractional count
4
Fractional count
0.80
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
4
Captures
26