X hits on this document

PDF document

*, Kimberly A. Quinn2, Sara Hodsoll3 - page 5 / 5





5 / 5

the same images according to how each image made them feel, along a similar scale ranging from 0 (not alert at all) to and 100 (very alert).

We entered the pleasantness rating scores into a mixed-model ANOVA with target age and target race as within-participants factors and participant race as a between-participants factor (see Table 3). Overall, infant faces were rated as more pleasant than adult faces, F1,14 = 535.48, P 0.001, South Asian faces were rated as more pleasant than White faces, F1,14 = 9.81, P,0.007, and own-race faces were rated as more pleasant than other-race faces, F1,14 = 81.25, P,0.001. In addition, the preference for infant over and adult faces was greater for own-race than cross-race faces for White participants but not South Asian participants, F1,14 = 8.453, P = 0.011. Of most import for this study, infant faces were rated as significantly more pleasant than adult faces regardless of target race or participant race, all P,0.001.

Arousal ratings were subjected to the same analysis (Table 3). Overall, infant faces were rated as more arousing than adult faces,


= 985.27, P,0.001. All interactions were significant: Target

Race x Participant Race, F1,14

= 24.62 P,0.001; Target Age x


    • 1.

      Bowlby J (1969) Attachment and Loss, Vol 1. (Pimlico, London). 448 p.

    • 2.

      Lorenz K (1985) Die angeborenen Formen m¨oglicher Erfahung. Z Tierpsychol 5: 233–519.

    • 3.

      Berry DS, McArthur L (1985) Some components and consequences of a babyface. J Pers Soc Psychol 48: 312–323.

    • 4.

      Glocker M, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Gur RC, et al. (2009) Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology 115: 257–263.

    • 5.

      Kringelbach M, Lehtonen A, Squire S, Harvey AG, Craske MG, et al. (2008) A specific and rapid neural signature for parental instinct. PLoS One 3: 1–7.

    • 6.

      Glocker M, Langleben DD, Ruparel K, Loughead JW, Valdez JN, et al. (2009) Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 9115–9119.

    • 7.

      Tronick E, Als H, Adamson L, Wise S, Brazelton TB (1978) The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. J Am Acad Child Psychiat 17: 1–13.

    • 8.

      Brosch T, Sander D, Scherer KR (2007) That baby caught my eye… Attention capture by infant faces. Emotion 7: 685–689.

    • 9.

      Brosch T, Sander D, Pourtois G, Scherer KR (2008) Beyond fear: Rapid spatial orienting toward positive emotional stimuli. Psychol Sci 19: 362–370.

  • 10.

    Malpass R, Kravitz J (1969) Recognition for faces of own and other race. J Pers Soc Psychol 13: 330–334.

  • 11.

    Meissner CA, Brigham JC (2001) Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces. Psychol Pub Pol Law 7: 3–35.

  • 12.

    Humphreys GW, Hodsoll J, Campbell C (2005) Attending but not seeing: The ‘‘other race’’ effect in face and person perception studied through change blindness. Vis Cognit 12: 249–262.

  • 13.

    Valentine T (1991) A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol 43A: 161–204.

  • 14.

    Papesh MH, Goldinger SD (2010) A multidimensional scaling analysis of own- and cross-race face spaces. Cognition 116: 283–8.

  • 15.

    Michel C, Caldara R, Rossion B (2006) Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Vis Cognit 14: 55–73.

  • 16.

    Hayward WG, Rhodes G, Schwaninger A (2008) An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition. Cognition 106: 1017–1027.

  • 17.

    Ng W, Lindsay RCL (1994) Cross-race facial recognition: Failure of the contact hypothesis. J Cross Cult Psychol 25: 217–232.

  • 18.

    Levin DT (2000) Race as a visual feature: Using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. J Exp Psychol Gen 129: 559–574.

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org


Social Attention to Infants

Participant Race, F1,14 = 33.95, P,0.001; Target Age x Target Race, F1,14 = 41.01, P,0.001; and Target Age x Target Race x Participant Race, F1,14 = 50.59, P,0.001. Although both South Asian and White participants found White infant faces more arousing than South Asian infant faces, the pattern of data differed for adult faces: Both South Asian and White participants found other-race adult faces more arousing than own-race adult faces. Critical to the current experiment, infant faces were rated as significantly more arousing than adult faces, regardless of target race or participant race, all P,0.005.


Thanks to Anna Paling for all her excellent assistance and in particular, for the preliminary study.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: JH KQ SH. Performed the experiments: JH. Analyzed the data: JH. Contributed reagents/materials/ analysis tools: JH. Wrote the paper: JH KQ SH.

  • 19.

    Lipp VO, Derakshan N (2005) Attentional bias to pictures of fear-relevant animals in a dot probe task. Emotion 5: 365–369.

  • 20.

    Brown E, Perrett DI (1993) What gives a face its gender? Perception 22: 829–840.

  • 21.

    Burton AM, Bruce V, Dench N (1993) What’s the difference between men and women? Evidence from facial measurement. Perception 22: 153–176.

  • 22.

    Cloutier J, Mason MF, Macrae CN (2005) The perceptual determinants of person construal: Reopening the social-cognitive toolbox. J Pers Soc Psychol 88: 885–894.

  • 23.

    Bentin S, Allison T, Puce A, Perez A, McCarthy G (1996) Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. J Cogn Neurosci 8: 551–565.

  • 24.

    Bentin B, Golland Y, Flevaris A, Robertson LC, Moscovitch M (2006) Processing the trees and the forest during initial stages of face perception: Electrophysiological evidence. J Cogn Neurosci 18: 1406–1421.

  • 25.

    Ito TA, Thompson E, Cacioppo JT (2004) Tracking the timecourse of social perception: The effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30: 1267–1280.

  • 26.

    Liu J, Harris A, Kanwisher N (2002) Stages of processing in face perception: A MEG study. Nature Neurosci 5: 910–916.

  • 27.

    Hrdy SB (2008) Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model. In: Salmon CA, Shackelford TK, eds. Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 39–68.

  • 28.

    Bernstein M, Young S, Hugenberg K (2007) The cross-category effect: Mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition. Psychol Sci 18: 709–712.

  • 29.

    Hugenberg K, Sacco DF (2008) Social categorization and stereotyping: How social categorization biases person perception and face memory. Soc Pers Psych Compass 2: 1052–1072.

  • 30.

    Sangrigoli S, Pallier C, Argenti AM, Ventureyra VAG, de Schonen S (2005) Reversibility of the other-race effecting face recognition during childhood. Psychol Sci 16: 401–444.

  • 31.

    Wright DB, Boyd CE, Tredoux CG (2003) Inter-racial contact and the own-race bias for face recognition in South Africa and England. App Cognit Psychol 17: 365–373.

  • 32.

    Lebrecht S, Pierce LJ, Tarr MJ, Tanaka JW (2009) Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit bias. PLoS ONE 4: 1–7.

  • 33.

    McKone E, Brewer JL, MacPherson S, Rhodes G, Hayward WG (2007) Familiar other-race faces show normal holistic processing and are robust to perceptual stress. Percept 36: 224–248.

  • 34.

    Van Selst M, Jolicoeur P (1994) A solution to the effect of sample size and skew on outlier elimination. Q J Exp Psychol 47A: 631–650.

September 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 9 | e12509

Document info
Document views7
Page views7
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 09:56:40 UTC 2016