This article was downloaded by: [University of St Andrews], [Amanda Hahn] On: 20 July 2011, At: 08:12 Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Social Neuroscience Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psns20 Thatcherization impacts the processing of own-race faces more so than other-race faces: An ERP study Amanda C. Hahn a b , Kelly J. Jantzen a & Lawrence A. Symons a a Department of Psychology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA b Department of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK Available online: 20 Jul 2011 To cite this article: Amanda C. Hahn, Kelly J. Jantzen & Lawrence A. Symons (2011): Thatcherization impacts the processing of own-race faces more so than other-race faces: An ERP study, Social Neuroscience, DOI:10.1080/17470919.2011.583080 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2011.583080 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, iFirst, 1–13 Thatcherization impacts the processing of own-race faces more so than other-race faces: An ERP study Amanda C. Hahn1,2, Kelly J. Jantzen1, and Lawrence A. Symons1 1Department of Psychology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA 2Department of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK It has been suggested that differential use of configural processing strategies may underlie racially based recognition deficits (known as the “other-race effect”). By employing a well-known configural manipulation (Thatcherization, i.e., rotating the eyes and mouth by 180◦), we aimed to demonstrate, electrophysiologically, that configural processing is used to a greater extent when viewing same-race faces than when viewing other-race faces. Face-related event-related potential (ERP) responses were measured for participants viewing normal and Thatcherized faces of their own race (Caucasian) and of another race (African-American). The P1 and N170 com- ponents were modulated to a greater extent by Thatcherization for same-race faces, suggesting that the processing of these faces is, in fact, more reliant on configural information than other-race faces. Thatcherization also affected the P250 component more so for same-race faces independently of orientation. The race-dependent effects of Thatcherization as early as P1 suggest that configural encoding may be occurring much earlier than the well-cited N170. Keywords: N170; P100 (P1); Thatcher; Race; Holistic processing. For many, the faces of one’s own race are easier be the result of differential face processing based to recognize than faces of another race (Chiroro & on race. Valentine, 1995; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & The expertise theory2 posits that this differen- Brigham, 2001; Walker & Hewstone, 2006). This phe- tial processing is the result of increased exposure nomenon, known as the “other-race effect,”1 has been to faces of one’s own race; specifically, it has demonstrated in a number of studies using behavioral been suggested that when viewing own-race faces, paradigms (e.g., Bothwell, Brigham, & Malpass, 1989; observers are better able to extract configural infor- Brigham & Malpass, 1985; Michel, Rossion, Han, mation about the spatial relations between individual Chung, & Caldara, 2006b; Tanaka, Kiefer, & Bukach, facial features (Diamond & Carey, 1986; Lindsay, 2004; Walker & Tanaka, 2003). More recent work Jack, & Christian, 1991; Rhodes, Brake, Taylor, & utilizing eye-tracking (e.g., Blais, Jack, Scheepers, Downloaded by [University of St Andrews], [Amanda Hahn] at 08:12 20 July 2011 Tan, 1989). Conversely, a lack of expertise with Fiset, & Caldara, 2008; Levin, 2000), functional imag- other-race faces may result in reduced ability to ing (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., encode this configural information and a greater 2004; Golby, Gabrieli, Chiao, & Eberhardt, 2001; Hart need to rely on featurally based processing strate- et al., 2000), and electrophysiological measures (Ito & gies, thus affecting processing and recognition abil- Urland, 2003, 2005; James, Johnstone, & Hayward, ities (Michel, Caldara, & Rossion, 2006a; Michel, 2001; Walker, Silvert, Hewstone, & Nobre, 2008) has Rossion, Han, Chung, & Caldara, 2006b; Tanaka et al., indicated that own-race bias in recognition rates may 2004). 1Also referred to as the “own-race bias”, “own-race effect,” or 2The expertise theory is also referred to as the “contact theory” “own-race advantage.” in some literature. Correspondence should be addressed to: Amanda Hahn, Perception Laboratory, School of Psychology, St Mary’s Quad, South Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, UK. E-mail: [email protected] © 2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business www.psypress.com/socialneuroscience DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2011.583080 2 HAHN, JANTZEN, SYMONS Configural manipulations, such as the well- environment can develop the expertise necessary to established face inversion effect, have been invaluable use configural processing strategies similar to when for investigating the mechanisms underlying face pro- viewing faces of their own race (Tanaka et al., 2004). cessing. In contrast to non-face objects, faces are Electroencephalography (EEG) is a valuable tool significantly more difficult to process and recognize for investigating the neural basis of face processing when inverted (Freire, Lee, & Symons, 2000; Rossion and expertise. A growing number of studies have et al., 2000; Yin, 1969). Processing deficits follow- revealed several “face-related,”3 event-related poten- ing face inversion are thought to be due to config- tial (ERP) components typically centered over occip- ural disruption—that is, disruption of the ability to itotemporal scalp locations that include the P100 (P1), process features configurally or holistically (Farah, N170, P250 (P2), and late positive component (LPC) Tanaka, & Drain, 1995; Young, Hellawell, & Hay, (Bentin, Allison, Puce, Perez, & McCarthy, 1996). The 1987)—because the configuration of individual fea- early components (i.e., P1 and N170) reflect the struc- tures is processed in an orientation-specific manner tural encoding stage of face processing, while later (Oram & Perrett, 1992; Perrett, Heitanen, Oram, & components (i.e., P250 and LPC) reflect stimulus cat- Benson, 1992). For example, when a face is inverted, egorization and/or attention to motivationally relevant the horizontal and vertical distances between the eyes information (e.g., race, gender, identity). These com- and nose are no longer apparent, because the eyes ponents can be affected by facial manipulations such are no longer above the nose and mouth (Goffaux & as inversion, contrast reversal, and other configural Rossion, 2007). Recognition rates for faces are dispro- alterations (Bentin et al., 1996; Eimer, 1998, 2000a, portionately impaired, because we rely on configural 2000b; Itier, Herdman, George, Cheyne, & Taylor, processing to a greater extent when viewing faces 2006; Itier & Taylor, 2002, 2004; Linkenkaer-Hanson than when viewing non-face objects. Another com- et al., 1998). The P1, P2, and LPC components are not monly used manipulation of configural information considered face-specific because their peak amplitude is Thatcherization (Thompson, 1980), in which the and latencies typically do not differ between faces and eye and mouth regions of a face are rotated by 180◦, other objects (cf. Itier & Taylor, 2004). However, they resulting in a grotesque appearance. This grotesque- are still of interest in understanding the neural basis of ness is reduced by inversion, implying that role of face processing. configural information in the phenomenon (Bartlett & The early P1 component (100–150 ms) is sensi- Searcy, 1993; Boutsen & Humphreys, 2003; Boutsen, tive to the physical characteristics of stimuli, partic- Humphreys, Praamstra, & Wartrick, 2006). ularly low-level visual properties such as luminance These techniques have also shed light on the other- and contrast (Halgren, Raij, Marinkovic, Jousmaki, race effect. Previous behavioral work utilizing the & Hari, 2000; Rebai, Poiroux, Bernard, & Lalonde, inversion effect (Rhodes, Brake, Taylor, & Tan, 1989; 2001; Rossion, Joyce, Cottrell, & Tarr, 2003), and Vizioli, Foreman, Rousselet, & Caldara, 2010) and may be modulated by affective responses to stim- the Thatcher effect (Murray, Rhodes, & Schuchinsky, uli (Halit, de Haan, & Johnson, 2000; Pizzagalli, 2003) has demonstrated that configural disruptions are Regard, & Lehmann, 1999; Pizzagalli, Lehmann, stronger for same-race faces than other-race faces,