↓ Skip to main content

Looking like a criminal: Stereotypical black facial features promote face source memory error

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Looking like a criminal: Stereotypical black facial features promote face source memory error
Published in
Memory & Cognition, July 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13421-012-0229-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather M. Kleider, Sarah E. Cavrak, Leslie R. Knuycky

Abstract

The present studies tested whether African American face type (stereotypical or nonstereotypical) facilitated stereotype-consistent categorization, and whether that categorization influenced memory accuracy and errors. Previous studies have shown that stereotypically Black features are associated with crime and violence (e.g., Blair, Judd, & Chapleau Psychological Science 15:674-679, 2004; Blair, Judd, & Fallman Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:763-778, 2004; Blair, Judd, Sadler, & Jenkins Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:5-252002); here, we extended this finding to investigate whether there is a bias toward remembering and recategorizing stereotypical faces as criminals. Using category labels, consistent (or inconsistent) with race-based expectations, we tested whether face recognition and recategorization were driven by the similarity between a target's facial features and a stereotyped category (i.e., stereotypical Black faces associated with crime/violence). The results revealed that stereotypical faces were associated more often with a stereotype-consistent label (Study 1), were remembered and correctly recategorized as criminals (Studies 2-4), and were miscategorized as criminals when memory failed. These effects occurred regardless of race or gender. Together, these findings suggest that face types have strong category associations that can promote stereotype-motivated recognition errors. Implications for eyewitness accuracy are discussed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 21%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 60%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 8 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,801,827
of 8,372,629 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#162
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,675
of 243,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,372,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.