Method
participant
G*Power 3.1.9.245 was used to estimate the planned sample size (α= 0.05, (1 −β) = 0.95), at least 36 participants were required for the calculation. Forty-six university students (23 women, 23 men) aged 20 to 24 years (21.54 ± 2.89) with normal or corrected-to-normal vision correctly understood the experimental tasks and signed an informed consent form before starting the experiment. . This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwest Normal University.
research design
In this study, we used 2 (race faces: faces of other races, faces of own race) × 2 (social status: occupational labels of high social status – doctor, university professor, military, CEO, low social status). We used the status occupational label – civil servant). , courier, waiter, cleaner) within-participant experimental design.
stimulation
Face photos: There were a total of 64 photos from the PAL/CAL database (Minear and Park 2004) (32 own-race faces, 32 other-race faces, 50 male faces, 50 female faces). ). Occupation labeling: Twelve participants who did not take part in the experiment were asked to label eight occupations (CEO, doctor, military officer, university professor, delivery person, restaurant waiter, janitor, civilian worker) as having high social status. They were asked to classify it as either low or low. As expected, high social status occupational labels typically fell into the high social status category, and low social status occupational labels typically fell into the low social status category. Finally, these occupational labels were added below the images of faces of different races.
procedure
Participants will conduct the experiment separately in a quiet room in the laboratory. Before the experiment began, they were informed that the entire experiment consisted of two stages: learning and recognition. The main task of the learning phase is to learn and memorize 32 faces in the center of the screen, collected from working adults from different countries and different occupational fields. The recognition phase simply determines whether the faces that appear sequentially in the center of the screen appeared in the learning phase. The specific experimental steps are as follows. First a black fixation point was presented in the center of the screen for 800 ms, followed by pictures of his face with various occupational labels below for 2000 ms, and every picture was presented only once for him. , a learning phase took place. Ended. Immediately after participants completed approximately 2 minutes of unrelated tasks, they entered a recognition phase in which they were asked to indicate whether they saw 64 faces from different countries and professions displayed in the center of the screen. (I’ve never seen half of them). The old one and half the new one). If I had seen it, I pressed the “F” key, and if I hadn’t, I pressed the “J” key. The image disappears only after the response. Duration is the time taken by the participant to complete the response. All labels and faces were presented randomly in the experiment.
result
In this study, the discrimination index ( d’ ) Utilize signal detection theory to analyze participants’ discriminatory ability to recognize faces of different races and social statuses.of d’ It is a standard parameter used to measure a participant’s ability to distinguish between old and new faces. It can be calculated from the hit rate (P (“Yes”/Signal)), false alarm rate (P (“Yes”/Noise)), and Z.(H) and Z(F) The POZ conversion table corresponding to the two probabilities is expressed as:
$$d^{\prime} \, = {\text{ Z}}_{{({\text{H}})}} – {\text{ Z}}_{{({\text{F} })}} .$$
The bigger the d’ It means more substantial discernment.the smaller oned’It means that your discernment is weak. Discernment ( d’ ) is an important indicator of the ability to distinguish between old and new faces and is a reporting standard CIndicates the stringency of participants’ criteria for judgment. It is often calculated using the following formula: Z(H)+ Z(F)/2.
Participants’ accuracy rate, false alarm rate, and discrimination index d’and reporting standardsC Photographs of faces of different races and social statuses at the recognition stage are shown in Table 1 . d’As an indicator, one participant had all discrimination indicators as 0 ( d’ ), data for one participant were removed. Based on the data of the remaining 45 people, we conducted a 2 (racial face: other race face, own race face) x 2 (occupation label: occupational label with high social status, occupational label with low social status) repeated measurement. Analysis of variance was performed.Performed using identification indicators d’ Represents participants’ recognition of different types of faces as dependent variables (see Figure 1). The results showed that the participants’ identification indices were as follows: d’ Faces in high-social-status occupations performed significantly better than faces in low-social-status occupations. F (1, 44) = 4.21, p < 0.05, ηp2= 0.084. Although there were no significant differences in participants’ ability to identify faces of different races, F (1, 44) = 0.12, p , p >0.05, ηp2= 0.001. The interaction between racial face and social status is significant; F (1, 44) = 4.32, p < 0.05, ηp2= 0.087. A subsequent simple effects analysis of the interaction found that participants’ discrimination index decreased when it was a face of another race. d’ Faces in high-social-status occupations performed significantly better than faces in low-social-status occupations. F (1, 44) = 7.32, p< 0.01, ηp2= 0.186.For faces of the same race, there was no significant difference in participants’ discrimination index for faces of high social status occupations. d’ and identification index d’ If the face is in an occupation with a low social status, F (1, 44) = 0.12,p>0.05, ηp2< 0.001. When the social status of the target face was high, there was no significant difference in d' between own-race and other-race faces ( F= 2.774,p= 0.103, ηp2= 0.058). Similarly, when the target face was of low social status, there was no significant difference in d’ between own-race and other-race faces ( F= 2.232,p= 0.142, ηp2= 0.048). The above results showed that participants did not show a recognition advantage for high social status faces of their own racial group, but when they recognized faces of different races with different social status, they showed a recognition advantage for high social status faces of their own racial group. This shows that they showed superiority in face recognition.
Reporting standards C: Participants’ reporting criteria in each condition were relatively strict (above “0”). However, there is also no main effect of racial faces ( F(1, 44) = 0.641,p= 0.428, ηp2= 0.014) or social status ( F(1, 44) = 0.313,p= 0.579, ηp2= 0.007) is significant, and the interaction ( F(1, 44) = 0.072,p= 0.789,ηp2= 0.002) was not significant.
discussion
Study 1 investigated the influence of motives on other face effects by manipulating the social status of faces through occupational labels based on the relationship between occupational status and social status. Results showed that individuals’ recognition scores for faces of other races with high social status occupational labels significantly improved and ORE decreased, demonstrating the influence of motivation on ORE. However, the manipulation of social status did not result in significantly better individual recognition scores for same-race faces of high social status than for faces of low social status. In contrast to the results of the current study, Shriver et al. found that when associated with low economic status cues, native faces were identified as outgroup members, and recognition of native faces was reduced; We found that ORE recognition did not decrease.31. This is possible because Shriver et al.’s study directly embedded faces into background images representing different socio-economic statuses, whereas the present study used textual category labels and presented a different selection of stimulus paradigms. There is a possibility. In the current study, we mobilized participants’ intrinsic motivation, investigated the influence of psychological factors on participants’ recognition of interracial faces, and investigated We prioritize detecting interspecific effects. Also, the fact that the participants recruited in the two studies had Eastern and Western cultural differences could also be a potential reason.
Social status and facial miscegenation effects belong to the category of social categorization. However, differences may exist in the effects of social status and ethnicity on face recognition, which may be caused by the hierarchical nature of social categorization. Although social status did not influence recognition of faces of one’s own race, it may influence recognition of faces of other races. Faces of other races seem to receive more attention than faces of own race, raising the possibility that a social class effect exists. Ethnicity and social status of faces are inferred to belong to different levels of social classification. However, future cross-cultural research is needed to further elucidate this issue.