The other-race effect (ORE), or the finding that same-race faces are better recognized than other-race faces, is one of the best replicated phenomena in face recognition. The current article reviews existing evidence and theory and proposes a new theoretical framework for the ORE, which argues that the effect results from a confluence of social categorization, motivated individuation, and perceptual experience. This categorization-individuation model offers not only a parsimonious account of both classic and recent evidence for category-based biases in face recognition but also links the ORE to broader evidence and theory in social cognition and face perception. Finally, the categorization-individuation model makes a series of novel predictions for how the ORE can be exacerbated, attenuated, or even eliminated via perceptual and motivational processes, both by improving other-race recognition and by reducing same-race recognition. The authors propose that this new model for the ORE also leads to applied interventions that differ sharply from other theories of the ORE, while simultaneously providing an integrative theoretical framework for future research on the ORE.

Many Labs 3 is a crowdsourced project that systematically evaluated time-of-semester effects across many participant pools. See the Wiki for a table of contents of files and to download the manuscript.

The university participant pool is a key resource for behavioral research, and data quality is believed to vary over the course of the academic semester. This crowdsourced project examined time of semester variation in 10 known effects, 10 individual differences, and 3 data quality indicators over the course of the academic semester in 20 participant pools (N = 2,696) and with an online sample (N = 737). Weak time of semester effects were observed on data quality indicators, participant sex, and a few individual differences-conscientiousness, mood, and stress. However, there was little evidence for time of semester qualifying experimental or correlational effects. The generality of this evidence is unknown because only a subset of the tested effects demonstrated evidence for the original result in the whole sample. Mean characteristics of pool samples change slightly during the semester, but these data suggest that those changes are mostly irrelevant for detecting effects. Word count = 151Keywords: social psychology; cognitive psychology; replication; participant pool; individual differences; sampling effects; situational effects 4 Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication University participant pools provide access to participants for a great deal of published behavioral research. The typical participant pool consists of undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology courses that require students to complete some number of experiments over the course of the academic semester. Common variations might include using other courses to recruit participants or making study participation an option for extra credit rather than a pedagogical requirement. Research-intensive universities often have a highly organized participant pool with a participant management system for signing up for studies and assigning credit. Smaller or teaching-oriented institutions often have more informal participant pools that are organized ad hoc each semester or for an individual class.To avoid selection bias based on study content, most participant pools have procedures to avoid disclosing the content or purpose of individual studies during the sign-up process.However, students are usually free to choose the time during the semester that they sign up to complete the studies. This may introduce a selection bias in which data collection on different dates occurs with different kinds of participants, or in different situational circumstances (e.g., the carefree semester beginning versus the exam-stressed semester end).If participant characteristics differ across time during the academic semester, then the results of studies may be moderated by the time at which data collection occurs. Indeed, among behavioral researchers there are widespread intuitions, superstitions, and anecdotes about the "best" time to collect data in order to minimize error and maximize power. It is common, for example, to hear stories of an effect being obtained in the first part of the semester that then "d...

Eye gaze is often a signal of interest and, when noticed by others, leads to mutual and directional gaze. However, averting one's eye gaze toward an individual has the potential to convey a strong interpersonal evaluation. The averting of eye gaze is the most frequently used nonverbal cue to indicate the silent treatment, a form of ostracism. The authors argue that eye gaze can signal the relational value felt toward another person. In three studies, participants visualized interacting with an individual displaying averted or direct eye gaze. Compared to receiving direct eye contact, participants receiving averted eye gaze felt ostracized, signaled by thwarted basic need satisfaction, reduced explicit and implicit self-esteem, lowered relational value, and increased temptations to act aggressively toward the interaction partner.

No abstract

The current article offers a brief history of research and theory related to social categorization and stereotyping. We begin by outlining research focusing on category selection, category activation, and category application. We then discuss the consequences of social categorization, noting that one of the most important and ubiquitous effects of social categorization is homogenization or assimilation. We then extend this research related to the assimilative consequences of social categorization to the realm of face memory. Specifically, we introduce the Categorization‐Individuation Model (see also Hugenberg et al., forthcoming) as a new model of the Cross‐Race Effect, or the difficulty many perceivers have in recognizing members of other racial groups. The Categorization‐Individuation Model argues that the Cross‐Race Effect is due to the tendency to categorize out‐group members but individuate in‐group members. Finally, we summarize the extant research in support of this new model of person memory and close by discussing the current state of, and potential future directions for, social categorization research.

The faces were pretested for equivalency of attractiveness and positivity. Ratings of neutral expressions of targets showing Duchenne smiles versus neutral expressions of targets showing non-Duchenne smiles revealed no differences (p > .2).

Social belonging is an essential human need. Belonging to social groups serves an important role in shaping our social identities. Nonetheless, research indicates that exclusion by ingroup and outgroup members seems equally aversive. The current studies test the hypothesis that unlike more trivial groups (e.g., smoking or computer preferences), highly essentialized groups may lead to differential effects of ingroup versus outgroup rejection. Consistent with this, exclusion and inclusion by racial ingroup members (relative to racial outgroup members) exacerbated the sting of rejection and the glow of inclusion (Study 1). In a second study, direct manipulations of essentialist beliefs about ingroups and outgroups (i.e., political affiliations) led to the same results. These results offer a novel demonstration that essentialized ingroup-outgroup distinctions enhance the sting of social exclusion and the positivity of social inclusion.