Description/Paper Instructions
Research Article
Nature and Nurture in Own-Race
Face Processing
Yair Bar-Haim,1 Talee Ziv,1 Dominique Lamy,1 and Richard M. Hodes2
1Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, and 2American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ABSTRACT—A standard visual preference task was used to
examine 3-month-olds’ looking times at own-race versus
other-race faces as a function of environmental exposure
to faces from the two categories. Participants were Caucasian
infants living in a Caucasian environment, African
infants living in an African environment, and African infants
living in a predominantly Caucasian environment.
The results indicate that preference for own-race faces is
present as early as 3 months of age, but that this preference
results from exposure to the prototypical facial environment.
Intergroup bias is the systematic tendency to evaluate members
of one’s own group (the in-group) more favorably than members
of a group to which one does not belong (the out-group). This
tendency can take the form of favoring in-group members, derogating
out-group members, or both (Hewstone, Rubin,&Willis,
2002). Intergroup bias is thought to be an initial form of prejudice
that is based on a fundamental strategy for survival and
personal well-being in the context of group living (Brewer,
2001). A salient instance of intergroup bias is racial prejudice.
Several researchers have suggested that differential processing
of the characteristic features of own-race versus otherrace
members may contribute to prejudice and stereotyping
(e.g., Aboud, 1988; Bigler & Liben, 1993; Doyle & Aboud,
1995; Katz, 2003; MacLin & Malpass, 2001; Richeson &
Shelton, 2003). For example, people are more accurate at recognizing
faces from their own racial group than faces from other
races (for reviews and discussion, see Bothwell, Brigham, &
Malpass, 1989; Meissner & Brigham, 2001). A recent functional
magnetic resonance imaging study by Golby, Gabrieli, Chiao,
and Eberhardt (2001) provided evidence that this recognition
bias is accompanied by a race-dependent neural activation
pattern. Using a recognition paradigm, these authors found
higher activation in response to own-race than to other-race
faces in specific face-sensitive regions of the adult brain.
By the age of 4 to 6 years, children already display racial
stereotyping and prejudice in a variety of contexts (e.g., Aboud,
2003; Doyle & Aboud, 1995; Katz, 2003; Killen, Lee-Kim,
McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002). At about the same age, children
also display a recognition advantage for own-race faces. Feinman
and Entwisle (1976) tested Caucasian and African American
children in Grades 1, 2, 3, and 6 on their ability to recognize
photographs of Caucasian and African American children.
Performance improved significantly with age, but the same ownrace
bias was evident at each age for both African Americans
and Caucasians (see also Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin, & Moore,
2003, for similar findings in third graders, and Sangrigoli & de
Schonen, 2004a, for a study of 3- to 5-year-old Caucasians tested
for recognition of Caucasian and Oriental faces).
Evidence for an own-race processing bias in early infancy has
also been reported. In a study on the development of racial
prejudice in young infants, Katz and Downey (2002, cited in
Katz, 2003) used a habituation-dishabituation paradigm to test
6-month-olds’ ability to discriminate between own-race and
other-race faces and showed what may be an early reflection of
other-race homogenization. Caucasian infants’ response to a
Caucasian male face after being habituated to four Caucasian
female faces was stronger than their response to an African
American male face after being habituated to four African
American female faces. For African American infants, the
findings were reversed. The greater ease of responding to gender
cues with own-race than other-race faces suggests that differential
processing of own-race versus other-race faces occurs
very early on. Recently, Sangrigoli and de Schonen (2004b)
assessed the own-race recognition bias in 3-month-old Caucasians.
Infants were first habituated to a single face. Then, at test,
the same face was presented together with a novel face of the
same race. Looking times at the novel face were longer for
Caucasian than for Asiatic faces, suggesting that the infants
were better at recognizing own-race than other-race faces.
Address correspondence to Yair Bar-Haim, Department of Psychology,
Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel, e-mail:
yair1@post.tau.ac.il.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 17—Number 2 Copyright r 2006 Association for Psychological Science 159
One explanation for the own-race processing advantage is that
people tend to have more contact with multiple face exemplars
from their own race than from other races and therefore develop
expertise at recognizing own-race faces (Brigham & Barkowitz,
1978; Brigham & Malpass, 1985; Gauthier & Nelson, 2001;
Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Nelson, 2001). Evidence for this
contact, or differential-experience, hypothesis comes from studies
showing reduced deficits in other-race face recognition in
members of minority groups. For example, in the United States,
the same-race recognition advantage is greater for Caucasians
than for African Americans (e.g., Anthony, Copper, & Mullen,
1992; Golby et al., 2001), who, by virtue of being a minority, tend
to have more contact with people of other races than Caucasians
do. This asymmetry has also been demonstrated in children.
Feinman and Entwisle (1976) showed that African American
children were better at recognizing Caucasian faces than Caucasian
children were at recognizing African American faces.
Furthermore, children who came from integrated schools and
lived in mixed-race neighborhoods showed smaller biases than
children from segregated schools. Other results showing that
training and exposure reduce the other-race effect also support
the differential-experience hypothesis (Elliott, Wills, & Goldstein,
1973; Goldstein & Chance, 1985; Lavrakas, Buri, &
Mayzner, 1976; Li, Dunning, & Malpass, 1998). Remarkably,
Sangrigoli and de Schonen (2004b, Study 2) showed that the
own-race recognition bias was eliminated when infants underwent
a familiarization phase in which they were exposed to only
three exemplars of other-race faces.
In the context of the study of the development of racial prejudice,
however, it is important to examine whether young infants
show an actual preference, rather than a processing advantage,
for members of their own race. Although differential processing
of own-race versus other-race faces may indeed be associated
with own-race favoritism, that is not necessarily the case.
The infant studies that demonstrated an own-race processing
advantage (Sangrigoli & de Schonen, 2004b), or in one instance
an own-species processing advantage (Pascalis, de Haan, &
Nelson, 2002), used paradigms that rely on infants’ response to
novelty following habituation. In these paradigms, longer looking
times at a novel face are taken to demonstrate infants’ categorization
and discrimination abilities. These abilities were found
to be superior for own-race or own-species faces relative to
other-race or other-species faces. Such habituation-dishabituation
procedures, however, do not allow one to draw inferences
about preference for own-race faces, because own-race and
other-race faces do not compete for infants’ attention and interest.
Instead, there is competition between a novel face and a habituated
face of the same race, and the magnitude of the resulting
novelty effect is compared between own-race and other-race
faces. In contrast, standard visual preference tasks can provide
evidence for own-race preference. When exemplars of two racial
categories are presented simultaneously, and thus compete for
an infant’s interest, preference can be inferred if the infant
consistently looks longer at one category (e.g.,African faces) than
at the other (e.g., Caucasian faces). Differential looking has been
used similarly in the attractiveness literature as a measure of
discrimination and preference (e.g., Langlois, Ritter, Roggman,
& Vaughn, 1991; Rubenstein, Kalakanis, & Langlois, 1999).
The purpose of the present research was to assess whether
infants as young as 3 months of age show preference for ownrace
faces relative to other-race faces, and whether the development
of such preference is modulated by infants’ exposure to
members of other races in the immediate social environment. To
that end, we used a standard visual preference task to examine
3-month-olds’ visual preferences for own-race versus other-race
faces as a function of environmental exposure to faces from the
two categories.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 36 healthy full-term infants, selected from
three distinct populations with different degrees of contact with
members of other races. Six additional infants were tested, but
did not complete the experiment because of fussiness. Each
group consisted of 12 infants (6 male, 6 female). The Caucasian
Israeli group (mean age 5 14.08 weeks, SD 5 1.44) was recruited
from the general population of Israel and lived in a primarily
Caucasian environment. The African Ethiopian group
(mean age 5 13.67 weeks, SD 5 1.72) was recruited from
families living in Addis Ababa and Gonder, Ethiopia, and
awaiting immigration to Israel; these families lived in a primarily
African environment. The African Israeli group (mean age 5
13.75 weeks, SD 5 1.54) consisted of Israeli-born infants of
Ethiopian origin. The African Israeli group was recruited from
Ethiopian families who were new immigrants to Israel living in
absorption centers. Many new immigrants’ first home in Israel is
an absorption center, where they live for 6 to 18 months. Such
centers provide intensive cross-race contact for new immigrants
from Ethiopia. Because the centers provide a vast array of social
support and acculturation services, the primarily Caucasian staff
running them is in close, daily contact with the resident families
and their children. For instance, infants living in the absorption
centers undergo routine bimonthly examinations by Caucasian
Well Child Service providers. Additional cross-race exposure
results from the fact that new Caucasian immigrants (primarily
from Argentina and countries of the former Soviet Union) also
reside in the same absorption centers. Finally, only 1% of the
general population in Israel is of Ethiopian origin. Thus, whenever
the African Israeli infants were taken outside the absorption
center, they were heavily exposed to members of another race.
Stimuli
Each stimulus display consisted of color photographs of two
faces (8 cm 9.6 cm) presented side by side against a gray
160 Volume 17—Number 2
Nature and Nurture in Face Processing
background. The nearest edges of the two photographs were 6 cm
apart. A set of eight different face pairs was generated. Each pair
consisted of one Caucasian face and one African (Ethiopian)
face that was of the same sex and matched for attractiveness (see
Fig. 1a for examples of the face stimuli used).Within this set, the
African face appeared on the right and the Caucasian face on the
left for four pairs (two male, two female), and the left-right position
was reversed for the remaining four pairs. The 16 photographs
used in the experiment were selected from a larger
collection of African and Caucasian faces rated for attractiveness
on a 5-point scale by Caucasian Israeli, African Israeli, and
African Ethiopian adults. The mean age of the models in the
selected set was 22.06 years (SD 5 4.10), and the mean attractiveness
was 2.54 (SD 5 0.63). All faces were frontally
oriented and displayed a neutral expression. Clothing cues were
masked. Each infant viewed the set of eight face pairs once.
Order of the pairs was randomized separately for each infant.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in small, darkened rooms. The
infants were seated on their mothers’ laps with their heads positioned
about 30 cm from a 14-in. laptop computer screen that
was used for stimulus presentation. A portable one-way mirror
served as a partition between the experimenter and the infant.
Mothers were instructed to fixate on a mark above their heads.
Thus, they could not see the face stimuli, which ensured that
their preferences could not be communicated to the infants.
Before the beginning of each trial, a series of black-and-white
visual patterns and click noises was presented to draw the infant’s
gaze to the center of the screen. As soon as this happened,
the experimenter, who observed the infant’s visual fixations from
behind the one-way mirror, initiated the trial, and a face pair
appeared for 10 s. The experimenter recorded on-line, on a
second laptop computer, the direction of each gaze (right, left,
not focused) and its duration (in seconds). The experimenter
could not see the stimuli that the infant was viewing and was thus
blind as to what type of face appeared on each side of the
computer screen at any given time. Interrater reliability was
assessed in a pilot study involving 29 Israeli infants. Mean
percentage agreement was 97%.
RESULTS
The results are summarized in Figure 1b. A repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) on average looking times (in
seconds) with group (Caucasian Israeli, African Ethiopian, or
African Israeli) as a between-subjects variable and face type
(Caucasian or African) and face gender (male or female) as
within-subjects variables revealed a significant Group Face
Type interaction, F(2, 33) 5 5.34, p < .01. A trend toward a
main effect of group was also found, F(2, 33) 5 2.79, p 5 .076;
average total looking times were 7.47, 6.07, and 7.86 s (SDs 5
1.43, 1.78, and 2.41), for the Caucasian Israeli, African Ethiopian,
and African Israeli groups, respectively. The main effect of
face type was nonsignificant ( p 5 .13), and so were all the effects
involving gender of the face (all ps > .40).
To explicate the Group Face Type interaction, we conducted
three separate ANOVAs, one for each pair of groups.
Because no main effect of face gender and no interactions involving
this factor were found, it was omitted from further
analyses. A significant Group Face Type interaction was
found in the analysis of the Caucasian Israeli and African
Ethiopian infants, F(1, 22)517.36, p<.001, Cohen’s d51.78.
Fig. 1. Examples of the face stimuli (a) and looking times (in seconds) of
the Caucasian Israeli, African Ethiopian, and African Israeli infants.
Whiskers represent standard errors.
Volume 17—Number 2 161
Y. Bar-Haim et al.
The Group Face Type interactions only approached significance
for the comparisons between the Caucasian Israeli and
African Israeli infants and between the African Israeli and African
Ethiopian infants, Fs(1, 22)52.72 and 1.69, ps5.06 and
.10, Cohen’s ds 5 0.70 and 0.56, respectively.
In addition, we assessed the effect of face type separately for
each group. These analyses showed that the Caucasian Israeli
infants looked longer at Caucasian than at African faces, paired
two-tailed t test, t(11) 5 3.40, p < .01, Cohen’s d 5 1.03. In
contrast, African Ethiopian infants looked longer at African than
at Caucasian faces, paired two-tailed t test, t(11) 5 2.56, p <
.05, Cohen’s d 5 0.77. Remarkably, Israeli-born infants of
Ethiopian origin showed no particular preference for African or
Caucasian faces, paired two-tailed t test, t(11) 5 0.50, p 5 .63,
Cohen’s d50.15. A power analysis, calculating for 50% power,
revealed that at least 301 additional participants would have
been required in order to obtain a significant preference for
Caucasian faces in this group. We therefore conclude that the
null result obtained for the African Israeli group is reliable.
To ensure that these results indeed reflected a preference for
own-race faces rather than culturally mediated color preferences,
we carried out a control study among 3-month-old Caucasian
Israeli (5 girls, 7 boys) and African Ethiopian (6 girls, 6
boys) infants living in Israel and in Ethiopia, respectively. The
procedure was similar to that of the main experiment, except that
all the faces of each race were replaced by a colored patch
matching their average color composition. Thus, each Caucasian
face was replaced by a uniform pink oval patch (RGB coordinates
5 220, 190, 180), whereas each Ethiopian face was
replaced by a brown oval patch (RGB coordinates590, 65, 70).
We reasoned that if color rather than race-related preferences
were at play in the main experiment, the same results would be
observed.
Overall, infants showed much less interest in the colored ovals
(mean total looking duration at both the pink and brown ovals5
2.63 s, SD 5 1.53) than in the human faces (mean total looking
duration at both the African and Caucasian faces57.11 s, SD5
2.02). More important, however, the results showed no specific
color preference in either of the two groups, paired two-tailed
t tests, ts(11) 5 0.73 and 1.03, ps 5 .48 and .33, for Caucasian
Israeli and African Ethiopian infants, respectively. These findings
allow us to conclude that the results of the main experiment
indeed reflected a bias in favor of own-race faces, rather than
simple color preferences.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, the looking-time patterns of the Caucasian
Israeli and African Ethiopian groups were race dependent. This
finding indicates that by 3 months of age, infants have the ability
to discriminate between own-race and other-race adult faces and
is consistent with previous habituation-dishabituation studies,
in which such abilities have been observed in 3- and 6-montholds
(Katz & Downey, 2002; Sangrigoli & de Schonen, 2004b).
However, although the ability to categorize faces on the basis of
characteristic racial features may be a prerequisite for the development
of own-race favoritism, it is clearly not a sufficient
condition for such favoritism. In this respect, the present study is
novel in showing that actual preference for own-race faces may
be present as early as 3 months of age.
The results also underscore the prominent role of infants’
racial environment in the development of this preference for
own-race faces. Indeed, preference for own-race faces was observed
only in infants living in predominantly homogeneous
own-race environments, and not in infants who experienced
intensive cross-race exposure. Unlike Caucasian Israeli and
African Ethiopian infants who live within an own-race majority
and develop a clear preference for own-race faces, African Israeli
infants (who by virtue of being a very small ethnic minority
experience considerable cross-race exposure) do not develop a
preference for own-race faces. Note that whereas earlier studies
showed a smaller but nonetheless significant other-race effect
in the African American minority relative to the Caucasian
American majority (e.g., Golby et al., 2001), our African Israeli
sample showed no preference. Although there are numerous
differences between the American studies and ours (e.g., children
and adults vs. infants, recognition vs. preference task), this
discrepancy is likely the result of more intensive cross-race
exposure in our sample (e.g., African Americans make up approximately
15% of the American population, whereas African
Israelis make up only 1% of the Israeli population). An explanation
based on cross-race contact is also consistent with findings
that studying in integrated schools and living in mixed-race
environments further reduce the own-race recognition bias in
African American children (Feinman & Entwisle, 1976), and
with Sangrigoli and de Schonen’s (2004b, Study 2) finding that
the own-race recognition bias in 3-month-olds disappears with
very little exposure to other-race faces.
Arecent study by Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti,Ventureyra, and
de Schonen (2005) further underscores the role of the environment
in shaping the own-race bias by showing that early intensive
contact with other-race faces can overturn the bias.
Sangrigoli et al. found that adults of Korean origin who were
adopted by European Caucasian families between the ages of 3
and 9 years identified Caucasian faces better than Asian faces.
It is noteworthy, however, that in earlier studies on the ownrace
bias in children (e.g., Feinman & Entwisle, 1976; Sangrigoli
& de Schonen, 2004b; Sangrigoli et al., 2005), the predominant
racial environment was always Caucasian, and was
therefore not counterbalanced between races. By investigating
the role of exposure to a dominant own-race environment versus
a dominant other-race environment in different racial contexts
(Caucasian and African), the present study provides an important
validation for the idea that the development of the own-race
bias is modulated by exposure to a homogeneous own-race facial
environment.
162 Volume 17—Number 2
Nature and Nurture in Face Processing
Early preferences for own-race faces may contribute to racerelated
biases later in life, perhaps by facilitating cognitive and
emotional processing of own-race faces. Longitudinal data
would be necessary to examine this hypothesis, that is, to investigate
potential links between infants’ preferences for ownrace
faces and own-race favoritism or prejudice later in childhood.
Although the present findings indicate that preference for
own-race faces emerges out of very early exposure to prototypical
perceptual environments, they also demonstrate that significant
exposure to other-race faces can block the development
of own-race preference. Sangrigoli and de Schonen (2004b)
showed that the recognition bias present in 3-month-old infants
can be eliminated with very brief exposure to other-race faces.
We speculate that the same might hold true for preference for
own-race faces. An important goal for further research would be
to delineate the critical period during which early-formed
preferences for own-race faces may be altered by exposure to
other-race faces.
Acknowledgments—This study was partially supported by The
Israeli Science Foundation (Grant No. 989/03).
REFERENCES
Aboud, F.E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Blackwell.
Aboud, F.E. (2003). The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group
prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental
Psychology, 39, 48–60.
Anthony, T., Copper, C., & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross-racial facial
identification: A social cognitive integration. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296–301.
Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1993). A cognitive–developmental approach
to racial stereotyping and reconstructive memory in Euro-
American children. Child Development, 64, 1507–1508.
Bothwell, R.K., Brigham, J.C., & Malpass, R.S. (1989). Cross-racial
identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,
19–25.
Brewer, M.B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict:
When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In R.D. Ashmore,
L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict,
and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). London: Oxford University
Press.
Brigham, J.C., & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do ‘‘They all look alike’’? The
effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to
recognize faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306–318.
Brigham, J.C., & Malpass, R.S. (1985). The role of experience and
contact in the recognition of faces of own- and other-race persons.
Journal of Social Issues, 41, 139–155.
Doyle, A.B., & Aboud, F.E. (1995). A longitudinal study of White
children’s racial prejudice as a social cognitive development.
Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209–228.
Elliott, E.S., Wills, E.J., & Goldstein, A.G. (1973). The effects of discrimination
training on the recognition of White and Oriental
faces. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 71–73.
Feinman, S., & Entwisle, D.R. (1976). Children’s ability to recognize
other children’s faces. Child Development, 47, 506–510.
Gauthier, I., & Nelson, C.A. (2001). The development of face expertise.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 219–224.
Golby, A.J., Gabrieli, J.D.E., Chiao, J.Y., & Eberhardt, J.L. (2001).
Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and
other-race faces. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 845–850.
Goldstein, A.G., & Chance, J.E. (1985). Effects of training on Japanese
face recognition: Reduction of the other-race effect. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 23, 211–214.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., &Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.
Katz, P.A. (2003). Racist or tolerant multiculturalists? How do they
begin? American Psychologist, 58, 897–909.
Katz, P.A., & Downey, E.P. (2002). Infant categorization of race and
gender cues. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Research on
Social Problems, Boulder, CO.
Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How
children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
67(4, Serial No. 271).
Langlois, J.H., Ritter, J.M., Roggman, L.A., & Vaughn, L.S. (1991).
Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 79–84.
Lavrakas, P.J., Buri, J.R., & Mayzner, M.S. (1976). A perspective on the
recognition of other-race faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 20,
475–481.
Li, J.C., Dunning, D., & Malpass, R.S. (1998). Cross-racial identification
among European-Americans: Basketball fandom and the
contact hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.
MacLin, O.H., & Malpass, R.S. (2001). Racial categorization of faces:
The ambiguous race face effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 7, 98–118.
Malpass, R.S.,&Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other
race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330–334.
Meissner, C.A., & Brigham, J.C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating
the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35.
Nelson, C.A. (2001). The development and neural bases of face recognition.
Infant and Child Development, 10, 3–18.
Pascalis, O., de Haan, M., & Nelson, C.A. (2002). Is face processing
species-specific during the first year of life? Science, 296, 1321–
1323.
Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Children’s face
recognition memory: More evidence for the cross-race effect.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 760–763.
Richeson, J.A., & Shelton, J.N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay:
Effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychological
Science, 14, 287–290.
Rubenstein, A.J., Kalakanis, L., & Langlois, J.H. (1999). Infant preferences
for attractive faces: A cognitive explanation. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 848–855.
Sangrigoli, S., & de Schonen, S. (2004a). Effect of visual experience
on face processing: A developmental study of inversion and nonnative
effects. Developmental Science, 7, 74–87.
Sangrigoli, S., & de Schonen, S. (2004b). Recognition of own-race and
other-race faces by three-month-old infants. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 45, 1219–1227.
Sangrigoli, S., Pallier, C., Argenti, A.-M., Ventureyra, V.A.G., & de
Schonen, S. (2005). Reversibility of the other-race effect in face
recognition during childhood. Psychological Science, 16, 440–444.
(RECEIVED 12/6/04; REVISION ACCEPTED 2/18/05;
FINAL MATERIALS RECEIVED 3/10/05)
Volume 17—Number 2 163
Y. Bar-Haim et al.
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE |
NO RESPONSE |
POOR / UNSATISFACTORY |
SATISFACTORY |
GOOD |
EXCELLENT |
Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) |
Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. |
20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. |
30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. |
40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. |
50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. |
Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). |
Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. |
5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. |
10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. |
15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. |
20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. |
Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) |
Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. |
5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors |
10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors |
15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. |
20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. |
Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) |
Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. |
3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. |
5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper |
7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. |
10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. |
|
|
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
|
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!! |
|
|