*Advanced Research Writing* For this assignment, you participated in an online experiment on facial recognition. Using the data that I gave you and your statistics from the analysis, you will write a short lab report (2-3 pages)in APA style consisting of an Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and References.Doing the experiment online is only to give you an idea of how the experiment works. You will write the mini lab report as if you were the researcher who conducted the experiment. You may use this article by Rehman and Herlitz (2007) as a reference in your report: Facial Recognition Article (Attached)
mini_lab_instructions.docx

mini_lab_read__sex_and_facial_recognition_2.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Mini Lab
Instructions
For this assignment, you participated in an online experiment on facial
recognition. Using the data that I gave you and your statistics from the
analysis, you will write a short lab report (2-3 pages) in APA style
consisting of an Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and
References.
Doing the experiment online is only to give you an idea of how the
experiment works. You will write the mini lab report as if you were the
researcher who conducted the experiment.
You may use this article by Rehman and Herlitz (2007) as a reference in
your report: Facial Recognition Article
males
5
5
8
5
6
7
4
5
3
4
8
5
10
6
5
5
females
9
8
7
7
9
8
8
8
9
10
7
9
8
9
7
9
8
7
5
6
8
7
9
7
Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355
www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy
Women remember more faces than men do
Jenny Rehnman
a
a,b,*
, Agneta Herlitz
a
Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Gävlegatan, 16 8tr, 113 30 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Received 20 December 2005; received in revised form 10 April 2006; accepted 13 April 2006
Available online 9 June 2006
Abstract
Women have been found to outperform men on face recognition tasks, specifically in the recognition of female faces. Men do not seem to exhibit a corresponding own-sex bias. To examine the
generality and possible reasons for these patterns, 107 men and 112 women viewed faces of both children and adults of either Swedish or Bangladeshi origin, for later recognition. As expected, women
were especially good at remembering female faces, but also outperformed men on male faces. Men
did not show an own-sex bias. Thus, regardless of age and ethnicity of the faces, women performed
at a higher level than men on both female and male faces, possibly reflecting enhanced interest in
faces, and in particular, female faces.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PsycINFO classification: 2343
Keywords: Episodic memory; Face recognition; Gender schema; Own-sex bias; Sex differences
1. Introduction
Recent research has demonstrated reliable sex differences favoring women in episodic
memory (i.e., the autobiographical records of unique events in the individual’s experience
encoded in a particular temporal-spatial context; Tulving, 1983, 1993), throughout the
*
Corresponding author. Address: Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Gävlegatan, 16 8tr, 113 30
Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: +46 8 690 5302; fax: +46 8 690 5954.
E-mail address: jenny.rehnman@ki.se (J. Rehnman).
0001-6918/$ – see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.04.004
J. Rehnman, A. Herlitz / Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355
345
lifespan (de Frias, Nilsson, & Herlitz, 2005; Kramer, Delis, Kaplan, O’Donnell, & Prifitera, 1997; Lindholm & Christianson, 1998). Typically, women excel over men when the
material is verbal (i.e., words, objects, concrete pictures), whereas the opposite is true
when the material to be remembered involves a substantial visuospatial component
(e.g., Astur, Ortiz, & Sutherland, 1998; Lewin, Wolgers, & Herlitz, 2001; Ruff, Light, &
Quayhagen, 1988). Women are also reported to show a modest advantage over men for
non-verbal material, such as abstract pictures (Goldstein et al., 1998; Stumpf, 1998). However, although women outperform men in the recognition of previously presented objects
and pictures (e.g., Bradbard & Endsley, 1983; McGivern et al., 1997), men have been
found to excel on object recognition in which the material to be remembered consisted
of so called male-oriented objects (McGivern et al., 1997; McKelvie, Standing, St. Jean,
& Law, 1993). Thus, factors such as interest and prior knowledge may influence the presence and magnitude of sex differences in episodic memory.
Besides the reliable advantage on verbal, and the modest advantage on non-verbal, episodic memory tasks, women typically outperform men on face recognition (Shapiro &
Penrod, 1986). Information regarding a person’s sex, if he or she is young or old (Bruce
& Young, 1986), and whether you share the same ethnicity, is processed rapidly and automatically (Ito & Urland, 2003). Moreover, it is easier to remember a person’s face if it
belongs to the same ethnicity as your own, a well-documented effect labeled own-race
or own-ethnicity bias (e.g. Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Sporer, 2001). A similar effect
has been noted with age, where differences in memory performance between young and
old adults have been moderated by the age of the face (Fulton & Bartlett, 1991). Although
the explanation for own-group biases are under debate, they have been hypothesized to
depend upon quality of contact and attitudes towards the other group (e.g. Meissner &
Brigham, 2001; Sporer, 2001), and can thus both enhance and worsen our memory for
faces.
Similarly, a person’s gender could be expected to affect men and women’s face recognition performance, strengthening men’s recognition of male faces and women’s recognition
of female faces. Indeed, previous research shows that women and girls exhibit an own-sex
bias, performing at a higher level for female faces than for male faces (Cross, Cross, &
Daly, 1971; Lewin & Herlitz, 2002; Sugisaki & Brown, 1916; Temple & Cornish, 1993;
Wright & Sladden, 2003). Men and boys, on the other hand, do not appear to show a corresponding own-sex bias for male faces. The majority of studies have found that men perform at a similar level for both male and female faces (Cross et al., 1971; Lewin & Herlitz,
2002; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2006) or that men, much like women, perform at a higher level
for female faces than for male faces (Feinman & Entwisle, 1976; McKelvie et al., 1993;
Rehnman & Herlitz, 2006). Only two studies have reported an own-sex bias for male faces,
so that boys (Ellis, Shepherd, & Bruce, 1973) and men (Wright & Sladden, 2003) recognized more male faces than female faces.
Although related, a second question concerns to what extent men and women differ in
their ability to recognize faces of the opposite sex. There are no studies reporting that men
and boys perform at a higher level than women and girls on female faces, although there
are some studies showing that men perform at a higher level than women on male faces
(Sugisaki & Brown, 1916; Wright & Sladden, 2003). However, other researchers have
found that women also outperform men on male faces, indicating that women’s higher
face recognition performance is more general and not constrained to female faces (Ellis
et al., 1973; McKelvie, 1981; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2006). Still, other studies have found
346
J. Rehnman, A. Herlitz / Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355
that no sex differences exist for male faces (Going & Read, 1974; Lewin & Herlitz, 2002;
Temple & Cornish, 1993; Vokey & Read, 1988).
Taken together, the previous research seems to indicate that the often reported overall
face recognition superiority seen in women (e.g., Herlitz, Nilsson, & Bäckman, 1997; Hill
et al., 1995; Whalin et al., 1993) to a great extent is a result of women’s higher performance
on female faces (Lewin & Herlitz, 2002). In addition, some findings indicate that the
female advantage in face recognition may not be constrained to female faces, but also exist
for male faces, indicating a general female advantage in face recognition to complement
the own-sex bias (Ellis et al., 1973; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2006).
Attempts have been made to explain the sex difference in face recognition, one suggestion being that women’s higher verbal ability influence their face recognition performance
(Lewin & Herlitz, 2002). No support for this hypothesis has been found, as faces were
found to be encoded non-verbally (Lewin & Herlitz, 2002). Another possible explanation
concerns the notion that faces, as other types of stimuli, can evoke more or less interest in
one gender as compared to the other. In line with this, women are reported to be more
interested in work involving a ‘‘people-dimension’’ (Lippa, 1998) and to have a better
‘‘social memory’’ than men (Kaplan, 1978). If faces evoke more interest in women than
in men, higher face recognition performance should be expected for women. However,
such hypothesis does not explain why women, as opposed to men, show a strong ownsex bias in face recognition, as an explanation must predict greater social interest in female
faces than in male faces.
Previous studies investigating sex differences in face recognition have not explored the
influence of personality related factors, such as femininity and masculinity, as classified by
Bem (1981a). According to Bem’s sex-role inventory, both men and women can vary in
their degree of femininity and masculinity and therefore be classified as sex-typed (e.g.,
a man with high masculinity scores and low femininity scores) or as non-sex-typed (e.g.,
a woman with low femininity scores and high masculinity scores). Studies on episodic
memory have shown that individuals’ gender schemas affect their memory performance,
so that individuals classified as having a feminine or masculine gender schema remember
information in concordance with that schema (e.g., Bem, 1981b; Signorella & Liben,
1984). As noted earlier, faces could be viewed as stimuli bearing more interest to women
than to men, and faces may therefore be in concordance with a feminine gender schema.
Thus, it could be hypothesized that both men and women classified as having a feminine
gender schemata (Bem, 1981b), should remember more faces than men and women with
other gender schemata.
While it is clear that women show an own-sex bias to a greater extent than men, information is lacking with regard to the generality of these results. For example, it is an open
question whether women show an own-sex bias for girls, and whether the female own-sex
bias extends to unfamiliar faces (i.e., of different ethnicity). Thus, in order to examine the
own-sex bias in the context of faces varying in age and ethnicity, we created a stimulus set
consisting of faces depicting male and female Swedish or Bangladeshi children and adults.
As previous research has indicated that the female own-sex bias is general (i.e., girls recognize more adult female faces than male faces; Rehnman & Herlitz, 2006), we hypothesized that women would show an own-sex bias, irrespective of the age and the ethnicity of
the recognized female faces, whereas men were not expected to show an own-sex bias. For
male faces, we expected to find smaller or no sex differences. Both men and women were
predicted to be similarly affected by the age and ethnicity of the faces, with more familiar
J. Rehnman, A. Herlitz / Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355
347
faces yielding higher performance. In addition, we anticipated differences in face recognition performance as a result of men and women’s gender schemas, with a feminine gender
schema being associated with a better face recognition performance.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Altogether 219 native Swedish speaking adults, 107 men and 112 women, age 30.2 years
(SD = 5.6), voluntarily participated in the study. Of these, 111 participants viewed faces of
Bangladeshi children and adults and 108 viewed faces of Swedish children and adults. As
can be seen in Table 1, there were no age differences between men and women or between
participants viewing either Bangladeshi or Swedish faces, although men and women differed with regard to education so that men had more years at university. Thirty men
and 32 women had children. Differences between participants with and without children
were evaluated using ANOVA with hits and false alarm rates converted into d 0 scores
as the dependent variable (Hochhaus, 1972). No significant differences were found.
The majority of participants were recruited through advertisements in a local daily
newspaper (n = 185) and a few (n = 34) were recruited by posters at the University of
Stockholm. No information was given stating that potential sex differences were to be
studied. Participants were informed about the possibility of receiving information about
their results. The study was approved by the ethical committee at the Karolinska Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden.
2.2. Procedure and material
Participants were tested in groups of up to 10 people who were seated to avoid overlooking others. Participants completed two face recognition tasks and three other cognitive tasks. The cognitive tasks served as filler tasks, and more importantly, were
included to control for potential cognitive differences between men and women and
between the groups viewing Bangladeshi or Swedish faces. The total testing time per subject was approximately 60 min. The test order was as follows: (1) presentation of the first
Table 1
Mean (± SE) age, years at university, and performance on tasks assessing word comprehension, mental rotation,
and episodic word recognition in men and women viewing either Bangladeshi or Swedish faces
Bangladeshi faces
Age
Years at university*
Word comprehension**
Mental rotation***
Episodic word recognition
*
**
***
Swedish faces
Men (N = 56)
M ± SE
Women (N = 55)
M ± SE
Men (N = 51)
M ± SE
Women (N = 57)
M ± SE
30.71
3.11
25.73
15.80
19.63
30.29
2.40
24.85
12.30
20.16
30.94
2.74
25.27
15.59
19.59
29.03
2.25
24.65
12.12
21.09
(0.76)
(0.27)
(0.26)
(0.58)
(0.57)
(0.74)
(0.24)
(0.38)
(0.58)
(0.63)
Men had more university years than women, p < 0.05. Men performed at a higher level than women, p < 0.05. Men performed at a higher level than women, p < 0.001. (0.79) (0.31) (0.28) (0.63) (0.65) (0.73) (0.27) (0.39) (0.60) (0.44) 348 J. Rehnman, A. Herlitz / Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355 set of faces, (2) paper and pencil word comprehension synonym task (Nilsson, Bäckman, Erngrund, & Nyberg, 1997), (3) first face recognition test, (4) auditory and visual presentation of 24 common, unrelated nouns for a later episodic memory test, (5) presentation of the second set of faces, (6) a modified version of the Shepard–Metzler mental rotation task for group administration, with 10 target figures (Lewin & Herlitz, 2002; Vandenberg, 1971), (7) second face recognition test, (8) yes–no paper and pencil episodic word recognition test, consisting of the 24 presented words, together with 24 new words, (9) Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981a). Face recognition. All 60 faces were presented with a PC projector and were in view during 3 s each, one after the other, without a blank interval. Faces were in color, in full frontal view, and free of facial hair and glasses. Portrayed people had a neutral expression. Swedish faces would fit the description of Caucasian faces and the Bangladeshi faces as South Asian. Bangladeshi faces were chosen as participants presumably had limited knowledge of these faces. Swedish children, 7–10 years old, and adults, 20–40 years old, were all photographed at schools and workplaces in Stockholm, Sweden. Bangladeshi children, 7–10 years old and Bangladeshi adults, 20–40 years old, were all photographed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi children went to a UN-supported school and the adults were recruited locally in Dhaka. All participants completed two face recognition tasks, one with adult faces and one with faces of children. Order of the face recognition tasks was counterbalanced, whereas ethnicity of the faces (i.e., Bangladeshi, Swedish) was kept constant across testing session. The two sets of faces (i.e., Bangladeshi, Swedish) were prepared in two versions and approximately half of the participants (n = 117) were shown the first version and the other half (n = 102) was shown the second. The 30 faces that acted as target faces in the first version were distracter faces in the second, and vice versa. Fifty percent of the pictures in each task depicted females. Male and female faces were presented randomly intermixed. Participants were instructed to closely watch the faces and were told that they later would be tested on their ability to recognize them. Eight minutes after presentation of faces, participants were shown the 30 earlier presented faces, together with 30 new faces, randomly intermixed. Faces were in view for 5 s during which participants, in writing, completed a forced yes–no recognition task. Four participants failed to indicate whether they previously had seen a face or not on one of the altogether 120 presented faces in the recognition task. Therefore, 0.5 points were deducted from these participants’ hits score or added to the false alarm scores, depending on which item they had failed to mark. Bem Sex Role Inventory. To assess the participant’s gender schema, participants were asked to complete the short form of Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981a). The inventory consists of 30 adjectives, 10 classified as feminine (e.g., affectionate), 10 classified as masculine (e.g., aggressive), and 10 as gender neutral (e.g., conventional). The participants were asked to indicate on a seven-graded scale whether the adjectives described her/him well or not. Three participants, 2 men and 1 woman did not complete the inventory and were therefore not included in the Bem analyses. Classifying participants according to Bem’s gender schema was done by median split across men and women (Bem, 1981a), (median femininity score = 5.30; median masculinity score = 4.70). A person was classified as having a feminine gender schema if he or she was scoring above median on the femininity scale and below the median on the masculinity scale. The same proce- J. Rehnman, A. Herlitz / Acta Psychologica 124 (2007) 344–355 349 dure, but reversed, was used when classifying individuals with a masculine gender schema. Thirty-two men and 25 women were classified as having a masculine gender schema and 19 men and 37 women were classified as having a feminine gender schema. Participants with an androgynous (n = 53) or undifferentiated (n = 51) gender schema were not included in the Bem analysis. 3. Results First, potential differences between men and women, and between participants viewing Bangladeshi and Swedish faces, with respect to scores on the three cognitive tasks were evaluated in a MANOVA. Ethnicity of the viewed face (i.e. Bangladeshi and Swedish) and sex of participant constituted between group variables. A main effect of sex was found, Wilks’s k = 0.82, F(3, 213) = 15.52, p < 0.001. Univariate F-tests showed that men outperformed women on the mental rotation task, F(1, 211) = 33.97, p < 0.001, and on the word comprehension task, F(1, 211) = 4.93, p < 0.05, and that women performed at a marginally significant higher level than men on the verbal episodic memory task, F(1, 211) = 3.17, p = 0.08. Means and standard errors can be seen in Table 1. None of the other differences between groups reached statistical significance, demonstrating that cognitive differences between participants viewing Bangladeshi or Swedish faces were not present. To examine potential differences between men and women on the face recognition tasks, a 2 (Sex of viewer: man, woman) · 2 (Face ethnicity: Bangladeshi, Swedish) · 2 (Sex of face: female, male) · 2 (Age of face: child, adult) ANCOVA was computed. Sex of the viewer and face ethnicity constituted between-group variables, and sex and age of the viewed faces were within-group variables. As years of education consistently have been found to influence cognitive performance (Lövdén et al., 2004) and there were differences between men and women with regard to number of years at university, it was included as covariate in the analyses. The dependent variable was the number of correctly (i.e., hits) and number of falsely (i.e., false alarms) identified faces converted into d 0 scores (Hochhaus, 1972). The ANCOVA revealed a main effect of the sex of the viewer, F(1, 208) = 20.41, p < 0.001, showing t ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

Order your Assignment today and save 15% with the discount code ESSAYHELP

X