Are Morphs a Valid Substitute for Real Multiracial Faces in Race Categorization Research?

The rise of the multiracial population has been met with a growing body of research examining multiracial face perception. A common method for creating multiracial face stimuli in past research has been mathematically averaging two monoracial “parent” faces of different races to create computer-generated multiracial morphs, but conclusions from research using morphs will only be accurate to the extent that morphs yield perceptual decisions similar to those that would be made with real multiracial faces. The current studies compared race classifications of real and morphed multiracial face stimuli. We found that oval-masked morphed faces were classified as multiracial significantly more often than oval-masked real multiracial faces (Studies 1 and 2), but at comparable levels to unmasked real multiracial faces (Study 2). Study 3 examined factors that could explain differences in how morphs and real multiracial faces are categorized and pointed to the potential role that unusualness/distinctiveness might play.

Broadening the Stimulus Set: Introducing the American Multiracial Faces Database

Face-based perceptions form the basis for how people behave towards each other and, hence, are central to understanding human interaction. Studying face perception requires a large and diverse set of stimuli in order to make ecologically valid, generalizable conclusions. To date, there are no publicly available databases with a substantial number of Multiracial or racially ambiguous faces. Our systematic review of the literature on Multiracial person perception documented that published studies have relied on computer-generated faces (84% of stimuli), Black-White faces (74%), and male faces (63%). We sought to address these issues, and to broaden the diversity of available face stimuli, by creating the American Multiracial Faces Database (AMFD). The AMFD is a novel collection of 110 faces with mixed-race heritage and accompanying ratings of those faces by naive observers that are freely available to academic researchers. The faces (smiling and neutral expression poses) were rated on attractiveness, emotional expression, racial ambiguity, masculinity, racial group membership(s), gender group membership(s), warmth, competence, dominance, and trustworthiness. The large majority of the AMFD faces are racially ambiguous and can pass into at least two different racial categories. These faces will be useful to researchers seeking to study Multiracial person perception as well as those looking for racially ambiguous faces in order to study categorization processes in general. Consequently, the AMFD will be useful to a broad group of researchers who are studying face perception.

How Do Multiracial and Monoracial People Categorize Multiracial Faces?

Due to their awareness of multiraciality and their perceptions of race categories as fluid, multiracial individuals may be unique in how they racially categorize multiracial faces. Yet race categorization research has largely overlooked how multiracial individuals categorize other mixed-race people. We therefore asked Asian, White, and multiracial individuals to categorize Asian-White faces using an open-ended response format, which more closely mirrors real-world race categorizations than forced-choice response formats. Our results showed that perceivers from all three racial groups tended to categorize Asian-White faces as monoracial Asian, White, or Hispanic. However, multiracial perceivers categorized the Asian-White faces as multiracial more often than monoracial perceivers did. Our findings suggest that multiracial individuals may approach racial categorization differently from either monoracial majority or minority group members. Furthermore, our results illustrate possible difficulties multiracial people may face when trying to identify other multiracial in-group members.

Black + White = Not White: A Minority Bias in Categorizations of Black-White Multiracials

The present research sought to provide new insights on the principles guiding the categorization of Black-White multiracial faces at a first encounter. Previous studies have typically measured categorization of multiracial faces using close-ended tasks that constrain available categorizations, finding evidence that perceivers tend to categorize multiracials as Black more often than as White. Two studies used less constrained implicit (Experiment 1) and explicit categorization (Experiment 2) tasks and found that multiracial faces were most frequently categorized into racial minority groups but not necessarily as Black. These studies suggested a minority bias in multiracial categorizations, whereby multiracials are more frequently categorized as non-White than as White. Experiment 3 provided additional support for the minority bias, showing that participants categorized multiracials as “Not White” more often than as any other category. Participants were also faster to exclude multiracial faces from the White category than from any other racial categories. Together, these findings are the first to document the minority bias as a guiding principle in multiracial categorization.

Barack Obama or Barry Dunham? The Appearance of Multiracial Faces is Affected by the Names Assigned to Them

Does semantic information in the form of stereotypical names influence participants' perceptions of the appearance of multiracial faces? Asian-Australian and European-Australian participants were asked to rate the appearance of Asian-Australian faces given typically Asian names, European-Australian faces given typically European names, multiracial faces given Asian names, and multiracial faces given European names. Participants rated the multiracial faces given European names as looking significantly ‘more European’ than the same multiracial faces given Asian names. This study demonstrates how socially derived expectations and stereotypes can influence face perception.