The own-race bias in child and adolescent witnesses
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355717731579 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Catriona Havard,Amina Memon,Joyce E Humphries |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
The own-race bias in child and adolescent
2017, Vol. 19(4) 261–272
ª The Author(s) 2017
witnesses: Evidence from video line-ups
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355717731579
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
Catriona Havard
School of Psychology, The Open University, UK
Amina Memon
Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway College, UK
Joyce E Humphries
Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, UK
Abstract
This study investigated the own-race bias in British school children using an eyewitness paradigm. Some 319 participants
viewed films of two similar staged thefts, one that depicted a Caucasian culprit and the other an Asian culprit, and then
after a delay of 2–3 days, viewed a line-up for each culprit. One hundred and seventy-six of the participants were
Caucasian and 143 were Asian. There were also two age groups: 164 were aged 7–9 years and 152 were 12–14 years.
There was a significant own-race bias for Caucasian participants from both age groups that resulted in more correct
identifications for the own-race culprit from target present line-ups and more false identifications for the target absent
line-ups. Asian participants from both age groups showed no own-race bias and performed equally accurately for culprits
of both races. Measures of inter-racial contact were associated with correct responses for other-race targets and
revealed that the majority of Caucasian participants in the current sample had very little contact with Asians, whereas
the majority of Asian participants had high levels of contact with Caucasians.
Keywords
Line-up identification, eyewitness memory, child witness, adolescent witness, video line-up, own-race bias, cross-race
identification
Submitted 18 Jan 2017, Revise received 22 Aug 2017, accepted 23 Aug 2017
Introduction
mistaken identity in which it has later been found that the
suspect was wrongfully convicted; in many of these cases,
In 1983, Habib Wahir Abdal, then known as Vincent Jen-
the suspect is from a different racial group from the victim.
kins, was convicted of raping a young white woman in a
A fairly robust effect in the literature is the finding that
nature reserve in Buffalo, New York. The woman’s initial
people are generally better at recognizing faces from their
description of the assailant was a black man with a hooded
own race, compared with other races. This bias has been
jacket, even though she had been blindfolded. The victim
referred to as the other-race effect, own-race bias (ORB),
had been informed by police that Abdal was the suspect,
own-group bias and cross-race effect. ORB (the term we
however, she failed to identify him initially as her assailant.
After viewing a photo that was 4 years old, the victim even-
tually identified Abdal from a show-up (where a single sus-
Corresponding author:
pect is presented). Abdal served 16 years in prison until he
Catriona Havard, Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, The
was exonerated through DNA evidence (http://www.theinno
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK.
centproject.org). This is typical of a number of cases of
Email: catriona.havard@open.ac.uk
262
International Journal of Police Science & Management 19(4)
use here) appears to be greater in Caucasian Europeans than
more accurate when recognizing Caucasian faces than
in other racial groups (Hancock and Rhodes, 2008; Jackiw
Afro-Caribbean faces, and there were no differences in
et al., 2008; Walker and Hewstone, 2006). One meta-
performance as a function of participant age.
analysis by Bothwell et al. (1989) examined data from 11
Although there have been several face-recognition stud-
face-recognition studies (with 14 samples) all using Afro-
ies investigating the cross-race effect, fewer have been
Caribbean and Caucasian participants. They found that
conducted using the eyewitness paradigm. In their meta-
both Afro-Caribbean and Caucasian participants recog-
analysis, Meissner and Brigham (2001) found that fewer
nized own-race faces more accurately than other-race
than 10% had used line-ups. Another finding from the
faces. A subsequent meta-analysis by Meissner and
meta-analysis was that individuals were not only worse at
Brighman (2001) analysed the data from 39 studies (with
recognizing faces from another race, but also were more
91 samples). In this article, 56% of the sample were
likely to falsely identify other-race faces. (For review of the
Caucasian, 32% were Afro-Caribbean and 12% were
literature see Brigham et al., 2007.) Although this area has
Arab/Turkish, Asian and Hispanic (other ethnicities). The
received little research from the eyewitness field, the Inno-
majority of studies were face-recognition paradigms (91%)
cent Project found that of 70% of mistaken identification
although some also used simultaneous target present (TP)
cases involved cross-race identification (www.theinnocent
line-up tasks (9%). The results from the analyses revealed
project.org), making it a noteworthy area of research.
that participants were less likely to recognize correctly pre-
Most studies that have used line-ups to investigate the
viously seen other-race faces (hits), and more likely to
ORB have used adult witnesses. One study by Smith et al.
recognize falsely other-race faces that had not been seen
(2004) asked Caucasian participants to identify either a
previously (misses). The ORB was found to be not signif-
Caucasian or Afro-Caribbean target they had seen previ-
icantly different for the Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean
ously, from either a TP line-up where the culprit was pres-
participants; however, Caucasian participants showed a
ent, or a target absent (TA) line-up, where the culprit was
larger ORB than the other ethnicities (Arab/Turkish,
not present. They found that participants made more correct
Asian and Hispanic).
identifications for own-race targets compared with other-
Although there have been numerous studies with adult
race targets, and made more false identifications for other-
participants (for a review see, Bothwell et al., 1989; Brig-
race foils compared with own-race foils. In another study
ham et al., 2007; Shapiro and Penrod, 1986; Sporer, 2001),
by Jackiw et al. (2008), Caucasians and First Nation (indi-
development of the ORB and its prevalence in children’s
genous people of Canada) participants were presented with
face recognition has not been subject to extensive research.
a series of First Nation and Caucasian faces, and then 12
Some studies have found that younger children (6–12 years)
line-ups (six TP and six TA). Jackiw et al. found that all
either show no ORB (Goldstein and Chance, 1980) or a
participants were significantly more accurate with their
reduced ORB (Chance et al., 1982) compared with older
own race, however, they were also more likely to choose
children (13–14 years) or adults. Goodman et al. (2007)
from the First Nation line-up, compared with the Caucasian
carried out a multination study with Caucasian children and
line-ups, especially the Caucasian participants.
adults in the USA, Norway and South Africa, where they
In one of the few studies using child witnesses, Kask and
were tasked with recognizing Caucasian, Asian and Afro-
Bull (2009) investigated identification of multiple suspects
Caribbean faces. They found that Caucasian children aged
of different ethnicities. They presented Caucasian children
8–10 and 12–14 years and adults showed a significant
(aged 8–10 years) and young adults (aged 16–19 years) in
ORB, and recognized own-race faces more accurately then
the UK with four target faces of different ethnicities (Cau-
other-race faces, however, those aged 5–7 years recognized
casian, Afro-Caribbean, Latino and Turkish). After a delay,
all the faces equally well. Goodman et al. (2007, p. 241)
the children either saw a sequential line-up for each ethni-
suggest ‘that cross-race face processing is not rigidly
city (two TP and two TA) or 24 faces shown sequentially,
“fixed” during childhood’ (p. 241) and may be more plastic
and the participants either made a decision for each face
for children than for adults. However, her conclusions are
individually, or once all the faces had been shown. Kask
based on research that has almost exclusively focused on
and Bull found that adults made more false identifications
Caucasian samples.
for other-race faces compared with own-race faces, but
The research that has examined developmental differ-
there were no differences in responses for the child wit-
ences in processing other-race faces is inconclusive. Some
nesses. In the USA, Pezdek et al. (2003) presented Cauca-
studies report that infants can show a preference to look at
sian and Afro-Caribbean children (aged 5–6 and 8–9 years)
own-race faces from as early as 3 months of age (Bar-Haim
and young adults (M ¼ 25 years) a video depicting a Cau-
et al., 2006; Kelly et al., 2007; Sangrigoli and de Schonen,
casian and an Afro-Caribbean man carrying out a cookery
2004). Furthermore, Corenblum and Meissner (2006)
demonstration. After a 24-hour delay the participants were
found that Euro-Canadian children (aged 6–14 years) were
presented with a TP line-up for each target. Caucasian
Havard et al.
263
participants were more accurate at identifying the Cauca-
years) and a face-recognition paradigm. Caucasian children
sian target and Afro-Caribbean participants were more
(Euro Canadian) were asked to recognize African...
To continue reading
Request your trial