Does Cross-Race Contact Improve Cross-Race Face Perception? A Meta-Analysis of the Cross-Race Deficit and Contact.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Meta-analysis (by design analogy, non-clinical)
PubMed 34176344 · doi:10.1177/01461672211024463
What was done
A meta-analysis synthesizing 20 years of research updating a 2001 meta-analysis on the link between cross-race contact and the cross-race recognition deficit (CRD). The authors tested the overall effect size and examined potential moderators, including the timing of contact (childhood vs. adulthood), perceptual processing type (holistic/configural vs. normal processing), and contact operationalization (measured vs. manipulated).
What was found
The updated overall meta-analytic correlation was r = -0.15 (updating the previous estimate of r = -0.13). The magnitude of this relationship was stronger when contact occurred during childhood rather than adulthood, and strongest when contact was experimentally manipulated. No difference was found between holistic/configural processing measures and normal processing. Total participant and study counts were not reported in the abstract.
Why it matters
It provides an updated quantitative estimate across two decades of research confirming a small, reliable relationship between outgroup contact and better cross-race face recognition, emphasizing childhood exposure and experimental contact conditions.
Limits
The abstract does not provide the total number of included studies, sample sizes, confidence intervals, or heterogeneity statistics. The overall effect size remains small (r = -0.15), and variations in how contact is operationalized introduce substantial heterogeneity.
Cited by
- supports Cross-race eyewitness identification is less reliable than identifying a person of one's own race.