Assessing barriers to the career ladder and professional development for ethnic minority genetic counselors in the United States.

Ethnic diversity is not reflected within healthcare professions, including genetic counseling, where lack of growth and membership among minority colleagues extends to upper-level and executive roles. While diversity and inclusion-based topics have been emphasized, studies on potential barriers to career advancement in the field of genetic counseling have not received the same attention. Our study examined the current state of mentorship and sponsorship programs, the presence of diversity and inclusion initiatives, and opportunities for career advancement through the lens of a minority genetic counselor. Practicing genetic counselors in the United States identifying as part of any racial group, other than non-Hispanic White alone, were recruited through the Minority Genetics Professionals Network for survey participation. A 31-item survey was fully completed by 19 practicing genetic counselors from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, allowing for individual stories and accounts to be amplified. Results showed 16 of 19 participants had never been promoted in their current employment setting. Additionally, 7 out of 19 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their company had a commitment to an ethnically diverse workforce within upper-level positions. Prominent themes identified from open-ended responses included lack of social connection with supervisors and the cross-race effect, a term referencing a tendency for individuals to better recognize members of their own race or ethnicity than others. Additional themes revealed feelings of isolation, need for support from White colleagues, as well as desired emphasis on sponsorship tailored toward professional growth. These findings demonstrate a need for proactive involvement in reaching ethnic and racial minority genetic counselors through companywide policy efforts, support and advocacy from White colleagues, and modification of cultural perception frameworks. Further focus and emphasis on these distinct but critical topics may be important in promoting increased diversity in upper-level positions in the field of genetic counseling.

A recognition advantage for members of higher-status racial groups.

The other-race effect (ORE) is a recognition memory advantage afforded to one's racial ingroup versus outgroup. The motivational relevance of the ingroup-because of relationships, belonging and self-esteem-is central to many theoretical explanations for the ORE. However, to date, the motivational relevance of outgroups has received considerably less attention in the ORE literature. Across six experiments, Black, White, Asian and Latinx American participants consistently demonstrated better recognition memory for the faces of relatively higher-status racial/ethnic group members than those of lower-status groups. This higher-status recognition advantage even appeared to override the ORE, such that participants better recognized members of higher-status outgroups-but not an outgroup of equivalent status-compared to members of their own ingroup. However, across a variety of self-reported perceived status measures, status differences between the high- and low-status groups generally did not moderate the documented recognition advantage. These findings provide initial evidence for the potential role of group status in the ORE and in recognition memory more broadly, but future work is needed to rule out alternative explanations.

The cross-race effect in automatic facial expression recognition violates measurement invariance.

Emotion has been a subject undergoing intensive research in psychology and cognitive neuroscience over several decades. Recently, more and more studies of emotion have adopted automatic rather than manual methods of facial emotion recognition to analyze images or videos of human faces. Compared to manual methods, these computer-vision-based, automatic methods can help objectively and rapidly analyze a large amount of data. These automatic methods have also been validated and believed to be accurate in their judgments. However, these automatic methods often rely on statistical learning models (e.g., deep neural networks), which are intrinsically inductive and thus suffer from problems of induction. Specifically, the models that were trained primarily on Western faces may not generalize well to accurately judge Eastern faces, which can then jeopardize the measurement invariance of emotions in cross-cultural studies. To demonstrate such a possibility, the present study carries out a cross-racial validation of two popular facial emotion recognition systems-FaceReader and DeepFace-using two Western and two Eastern face datasets. Although both systems could achieve overall high accuracies in the judgments of emotion category on the Western datasets, they performed relatively poorly on the Eastern datasets, especially in recognition of negative emotions. While these results caution the use of these automatic methods of emotion recognition on non-Western faces, the results also suggest that the measurements of happiness outputted by these automatic methods are accurate and invariant across races and hence can still be utilized for cross-cultural studies of positive psychology.

Can intentional forgetting reduce the cross-race effect in memory?

Across three studies, we utilized an item-method directed forgetting (DF) procedure with faces of different races to investigate the magnitude of intentional forgetting of own-race versus other-race faces. All three experiments shared the same procedure but differed in the number of faces presented. Participants were presented with own-race and other-race faces, each followed by a remember or forget memory instruction, and subsequently received a recognition test for all studied faces. We obtained a robust cross-race effect (CRE) but did not find a DF effect in Experiment 1. Experiments 2 and 3 used shorter study and test lists and obtained a significant DF effect along with significant CRE, but no interaction between face type and memory instruction. The results suggest that own-race and other-race faces are equally susceptible to DF. The results are discussed in terms of the theoretical explanations for CRE and their implications for DF.

Does Cross-Race Contact Improve Cross-Race Face Perception? A Meta-Analysis of the Cross-Race Deficit and Contact.

Contact with racial outgroups is thought to reduce the cross-race recognition deficit (CRD), the tendency for people to recognize same-race (i.e., ingroup) faces more accurately than cross-race (i.e., outgroup) faces. In 2001, Meissner and Brigham conducted a meta-analysis in which they examined this question and found a meta-analytic effect of r = -.13. We conduct a new meta-analysis based on 20 years of additional data to update the estimate of this relationship and examine theoretical and methodological moderators of the effect. We find a meta-analytic effect of r = -.15. In line with theoretical predictions, we find some evidence that the magnitude of this relationship is stronger when contact occurs during childhood rather than adulthood. We find no evidence that the relationship differs for measures of holistic/configural processing compared with normal processing. Finally, we find that the magnitude of the relationship depends on the operationalization of contact and that it is strongest when contact is manipulated. We consider recommendations for further research on this topic.

Memory for diverse faces in a racially attentive context.

Two experiments assessed how racial ambiguity and racial salience moderates the cross-race effect (CRE). In experiment 1, White and Black participants studied and identified the race of Asian, Black, Latino, and White faces that varied in ethnic typicality (high or low ET). For White participants, the CRE was larger when comparing high-ET White faces to high-ET other-race faces than low-ET other-race faces. Black participants showed a similar CRE reduction by ethnic typicality, but also showed a less prevalent CRE than White participants. Experiment 2 replicated experiment 1 procedures, but without the race identification task and only with White participants. Experiment 2 findings were comparable to experiment 1. Furthermore, experiment 2 showed a noticeably smaller CRE on Black faces than experiment 1, eliciting questions about increased racial salience amplifying the CRE. Results' general implications and the conceptual roots that indirectly link the CRE and racism will be discussed.

Postdictive confidence (but not predictive confidence) predicts eyewitness memory accuracy.

If testing conditions are uncontaminated, confidence at test reliably predicts eyewitness memory accuracy. Unfortunately, information about eyewitness postdictive confidence (at the time of the identification test) is frequently unavailable or not well documented. In cases where postdictive confidence is unavailable, a useful indicator of eyewitness accuracy might be an eyewitness's predictive confidence made shortly after the event. How do the accuracy of predictive and postdictive confidence judgments compare; and do variables reported to affect memory (e.g. exposure duration, face race) affect the reliability of the confidence-accuracy relationship for predictive and postdictive judgments? In two experiments, we tested the accuracy of memory predictions (immediate and delayed judgments of learning [JOLs]) and postdictions (confidence) for same- and cross-race faces. Although delayed high JOLs were indicative of higher recognition memory accuracy than delayed low JOLs for both same- and cross-race faces, the accuracy of even high predictive JOLs was objectively low. Postdictive confidence was a far stronger indicator of memory accuracy than predictive JOLs; high postdictive confidence was indicative of high accuracy; and this was true for both same- and cross-race recognition memory.

Evidence for a confidence-accuracy relationship in memory for same- and cross-race faces.

Discrimination accuracy is usually higher for same- than for cross-race faces, a phenomenon known as the cross-race effect (CRE). According to prior research, the CRE occurs because memories for same- and cross-race faces rely on qualitatively different processes. However, according to a continuous dual-process model of recognition memory, memories that rely on qualitatively different processes do not differ in recognition accuracy when confidence is equated. Thus, although there are differences in overall same- and cross-race discrimination accuracy, confidence-specific accuracy (i.e., recognition accuracy at a particular level of confidence) may not differ. We analysed datasets from four recognition memory studies on same- and cross-race faces to test this hypothesis. Confidence ratings reliably predicted recognition accuracy when performance was above chance levels (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) but not when performance was at chance levels (Experiment 4). Furthermore, at each level of confidence, confidence-specific accuracy for same- and cross-race faces did not significantly differ when overall performance was above chance levels (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) but significantly differed when overall performance was at chance levels (Experiment 4). Thus, under certain conditions, high-confidence same-race and cross-race identifications may be equally reliable.

The unfamiliar face effect on forensic craniofacial reconstruction and recognition.

Previous research into the reliability of forensic craniofacial reconstruction (CFR) has focused primarily on the accuracy of reconstructed faces from European or African ancestry skulls. Moreover, the recognition of CFR in relation to the experience and ancestry of the practitioners and the assessors has not been previously considered. The cross-race effect is a recognised phenomenon in psychology studies, where familiar ancestry faces are recognised more readily than unfamiliar ancestry faces, but there is a paucity of research addressing the relationship between the accuracy of reconstructed faces and the familiarity with this ancestry by the practitioners/assessors. The aims of this research were to investigate whether 'unfamiliar-race effect' has any influence on the accuracy of CFR and to evaluate how much the correct recognition rate of CFR is affected by the cross-race effect. Eight CFRs from three ancestry groups were produced by experienced practitioners in order to explore the aims. The results demonstrated that practitioners produced more recognisable CFRs using skulls from a familiar ancestry than skulls from unfamiliar ancestries.

Postencoding cognitive processes in the cross-race effect: Categorization and individuation during face recognition.

The cross-race effect (CRE) describes the finding that same-race faces are recognized more accurately than cross-race faces. According to social-cognitive theories of the CRE, processes of categorization and individuation at encoding account for differential recognition of same- and cross-race faces. Recent face memory research has suggested that similar but distinct categorization and individuation processes also occur postencoding, at recognition. Using a divided-attention paradigm, in Experiments 1A and 1B we tested and confirmed the hypothesis that distinct postencoding categorization and individuation processes occur during the recognition of same- and cross-race faces. Specifically, postencoding configural divided-attention tasks impaired recognition accuracy more for same-race than for cross-race faces; on the other hand, for White (but not Black) participants, postencoding featural divided-attention tasks impaired recognition accuracy more for cross-race than for same-race faces. A social categorization paradigm used in Experiments 2A and 2B tested the hypothesis that the postencoding in-group or out-group social orientation to faces affects categorization and individuation processes during the recognition of same-race and cross-race faces. Postencoding out-group orientation to faces resulted in categorization for White but not for Black participants. This was evidenced by White participants' impaired recognition accuracy for same-race but not for cross-race out-group faces. Postencoding in-group orientation to faces had no effect on recognition accuracy for either same-race or cross-race faces. The results of Experiments 2A and 2B suggest that this social orientation facilitates White but not Black participants' individuation and categorization processes at recognition. Models of recognition memory for same-race and cross-race faces need to account for processing differences that occur at both encoding and recognition.

The cross-race effect in face recognition memory by bicultural individuals.

Social-cognitive models of the cross-race effect (CRE) generally specify that cross-race faces are automatically categorized as an out-group, and that different encoding processes are then applied to same-race and cross-race faces, resulting in better recognition memory for same-race faces. We examined whether cultural priming moderates the cognitive categorization of cross-race faces. In Experiment 1, monoracial Latino-Americans, considered to have a bicultural self, were primed to focus on either a Latino or American cultural self and then viewed Latino and White faces. Latino-Americans primed as Latino exhibited higher recognition accuracy (A') for Latino than White faces; those primed as American exhibited higher recognition accuracy for White than Latino faces. In Experiment 2, as predicted, prime condition did not moderate the CRE in European-Americans. These results suggest that for monoracial biculturals, priming either of their cultural identities influences the encoding processes applied to same- and cross-race faces, thereby moderating the CRE.

A cultural setting where the other-race effect on face recognition has no social-motivational component and derives entirely from lifetime perceptual experience.

Competing approaches to the other-race effect (ORE) see its primary cause as either a lack of motivation to individuate social outgroup members, or a lack of perceptual experience with other-race faces. Here, we argue that the evidence supporting the social-motivational approach derives from a particular cultural setting: a high socio-economic status group (typically US Whites) looking at the faces of a lower status group (US Blacks) with whom observers typically have at least moderate perceptual experience. In contrast, we test motivation-to-individuate instructions across five studies covering an extremely wide range of perceptual experience, in a cultural setting of more equal socio-economic status, namely Asian and Caucasian participants (N = 480) tested on Asian and Caucasian faces. We find no social-motivational component at all to the ORE, specifically: no reduction in the ORE with motivation instructions, including for novel images of the faces, and at all experience levels; no increase in correlation between own- and other-race face recognition, implying no increase in shared processes; and greater (not the predicted less) effort applied to distinguishing other-race faces than own-race faces under normal ("no instructions") conditions. Instead, the ORE was predicted by level of contact with the other-race. Our results reject both pure social-motivational theories and also the recent Categorization-Individuation model of Hugenberg, Young, Bernstein, and Sacco (2010). We propose a new dual-route approach to the ORE, in which there are two causes of the ORE-lack of motivation, and lack of experience--that contribute differently across varying world locations and cultural settings.

Eye-tracking the own-race bias in face recognition: revealing the perceptual and socio-cognitive mechanisms.

Own-race faces are recognised more accurately than other-race faces and may even be viewed differently as measured by an eye-tracker (Goldinger, Papesh, & He, 2009). Alternatively, observer race might direct eye-movements (Blais, Jack, Scheepers, Fiset, & Caldara, 2008). Observer differences in eye-movements are likely to be based on experience of the physiognomic characteristics that are differentially discriminating for Black and White faces. Two experiments are reported that employed standard old/new recognition paradigms in which Black and White observers viewed Black and White faces with their eye-movements recorded. Experiment 1 showed that there were observer race differences in terms of the features scanned but observers employed the same strategy across different types of faces. Experiment 2 demonstrated that other-race faces could be recognised more accurately if participants had their first fixation directed to more diagnostic features using fixation crosses. These results are entirely consistent with those presented by Blais et al. (2008) and with the perceptual interpretation that the own-race bias is due to inappropriate attention allocated to the facial features (Hills & Lewis, 2006, 2011).