didn’t just depend on the categorization of different groups, but the perceived stereotypical differences between the groups themselves. Rothbart and Lewis, 2006, demonstrated this using the perceived differences of temperament between three groups of a university marching band. The differences that were accentuated between the groups relied on how much the groups were expected to be different, despite the temperament of all three groups being close to the same. This means that groups that were stereotypically different accentuated the differences between them more so than groups that were stereotypically similar. The exaggeration took place due to the expectations as opposed to the actual group differences present. This effect between the ingroup and the outgroup is due to a number of reasons. Those in the ingroup encode outgroup characteristics, leading to the perceived differences between the two groups, but especially from the perspective of the ingroup. Furthermore, people focus on features that are typical as opposed to atypical in groups, and when there are two clear categories in place, this information works to polarize the groups, resulting in greater differences between them. The contact between ingroups and outgroups, however, didn’t work to reduce this effect. Instead, it increased. The longer the groups spent with each other (and in the case of the study the longer people in the different groups spent in marching bands), the more they perceived that there were differences between them. The preference for the ingroup over the outgroup in the study also did not result in a correlation with the accentuation of differences, suggesting it did not play a role. However, the groups observed in the study were not hostile towards each other, as previous research has reported strong accentuation with groups that are ideologically opposed, meaning that hostility between the ingroup and outgroup as opposed to preference may result in an increased attenuation effect. The understanding of intergroup accentuation is important as it could lead to the understanding of conflict between different groups. Within ethnicity and faces Researchers Corneille, Huart, Becquart, and Bredart found that, when participants looked at ethnically ambiguous faces, certain ethnic features that stood out caused participants to falsely remember the person more toward an ethnic category than they actually were. Researchers used Caucasian or North African faces, and morphed them to be either low, moderate, or high on stereotypical features. The faces that were moderately stereotypical of either a Caucasian or North