|
by Anna Hickner
As time
progresses and the cultural climate of our country takes a new turn,
interracial interactions are more and more common. Now more than ever, we
encounter people of different backgrounds on a daily basis. Among the most
strained, yet common, are interactions between Caucasians and African
Americans. The United States of America has a long and toiled history of White
and Black relations. Since the birth of our country there has been racial
tension. Although explicit forms of racism are generally considered taboo
today, many other types of subliminal and aversive racism still exist. This paper explores the prevalence of
implicit racism in our society through use of brain imaging, implicit
association testing, and models of social thought construction, and the implications
of these findings for our society today and in the future.
With the
evolution of sophisticated measurement techniques in neuroscience, new and
interesting data reveals biological reactions to everyday life. Because of the
push for “politically correct” social conduct, the way one behaves is not necessarily
congruent with what one’s thoughts, attitudes and beliefs. In a number of
studies, researchers explored this discrepancy by using fMRI techniques to scan
brain activity of White participants when encountering Black faces. As an
umbrella statement, usually only white participants are used because the bias
in any majority/minority dyad seems to play in the majority’s favor. In some
studies in this paper, however, Black participants were also used. The
amygdala, part of the brain often associated with emotional reaction and fear,
is considered part of the limbic system. Located deep in the temporal lobes, it
is connected to various parts of the brain that regulate behavior, control and
thought. Previous studies cite that there is strong activation of the left
superior amygdala when Whites view pictures of Black faces (Phelps et al.,
2000).
A study by
Hart et al. (2000) explored this concept further. Using an fMRI, the
researchers explored amygdala activation of White participants viewing ingroup
and outgroup categories with neutral facial expressions. They found that there
was more activity when viewing faces of outgroup members (White participants
looking at Black faces) than faces of ingroup members (White participants
looking at White faces). Still, none of the subjects, although indicating that
they noticed the pictures were differentiated by race, self-reported emotional
reactions to the pictures. Therefore, although no explicit personal biases were
reported, neural imaging demonstrated a prolonged activation response to faces
of a different race as opposed to faces of same race (Hart et al., 2000). Since
this brain region is associated with facial recognition as well as threatening
situations, researchers concluded that amygdala activation indicates a fear
reaction in White participants, even if outward behavior and self-report does
not support this assertion.
Although for
many years the amygdala was considered the target region activated in viewing
faces of outgroups, current research indicates that not only the amygdala, but also
that other parts of the brain are also utilized. Harris and Fiske (2006) used
neuroimaging of participants who looked at slides of depictions of extreme
outgroups and noticed that the emotional response is not confined solely to one
region of the brain:
“members of
some social groups seem to be dehumanized, at least as indicated by the absence
of the typical neural signature for social cognition, as well as the
exaggerated amygdala and insula reactions (consistent with disgust) and the
disgust ratings they elicit.” (p. 852)
Other studies also
support the hypothesis that areas the prefrontal cortex are activated in
interracial interactions, specifically the regions associated with social
cognition, such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). This finding
corroborates other research that argues that although brain imaging highlights
certain emotionally reactive situations (that of seeing a picture of a Black
face), there is also evidence that subsequent brain processes act to
overcompensate in order to cover up the automatic “dislike” reaction. A group
of researchers focused on the specific neural components that processed Black
and White faces. By using the fMRI scans and the Implicit Associations Test
(IAT), researchers found that amygdala activity was consistent with implicit
racist attitudes. However, all White participants also displayed efforts to
hide their bias (Cunningham et al., 2004). This is consistent with prior
research that indicates Whites have a tendency to mask racist attitudes that
are now regarded as socially unacceptable. In addition to amygdala activation,
their data showed activity difference in the PFC and anterior cingulated when
viewing slides of Black and White faces. Thus areas of the brain that are responsible
for inhibition, conflict and control were also utilized.
Inhibition and
control are paramount in social correctness. To challenge these compensatory
behaviors, Bartholow, Dickter and Sestir (2006) used alcohol, known for its
diminishing effect with inhibition control, as an agent to challenge the
masking of racial bias. They used behavioral event-related brain potential
(ERP) data to monitor the effect of alcohol on racial bias. By administering
various levels of alcohol to of-age participants, they hypothesized that
automatic associations regarding race would not change, but the controlled
reactions to race would decrease as alcohol suppressed inhibitions. They found
on both behavioral and ERP measures, controlled reactions were noticeably impaired.
As automatic reactions remained unaffected, the ability to “cover up” certain
attitudes was reduced, thus pointing to the idea that certain mechanisms are
implemented for socially acceptable conduct. This not only supports the notion
that areas in the brain associated with higher-order functioning are recruited
for control in interracial interactions, but also that when alcohol is
introduced, it has the potential to shed light on surreptitious attitudes that
can and will affect future race relations.
Interestingly, such studies that find people
use control is used to mask a prejudiced reaction, also find that overall
executive function is compromised. A study that looked at the impact of
interracial contact on executive function concluded that individuals who
reportedly have a higher bias towards Blacks have lower task completion
outcomes (Richeson et al., 2003). By
using fMRI imaging and the Stroop Test, a test that consists of color naming
unrelated to racial cues, results indicated that prior interaction with an
unfamiliar Black face affected performance on a racially neutral task. In fact,
the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), responsible for exacting control,
was the primary activated area of the brain. Underperformance on the Stroop
Tests suggests that significant amount energy is expended on exacting control
in these instances, to the extent that neural faculties are compromised.
However, it is suggested that this effect may be dissipate with increased
interaction with stigmatized persons (Richeson & Shelton, 2003).
After
conducting the above referenced research in 2003, Richeson and Trawalter (2005)
explored this relationship to impaired cognitive function using the idea of a resource depletion account. They note,
“This implication is particularly troubling because it suggest that being
motivated to control prejudice during interracial interactions may come with
negative consequences for individuals,” (Richeson and Trawalter, 2005, p. 944).
This points to several important things. First, suggests that masking prejudice
may be prevalent in today’s society, even to the extent that performance in
other areas is compromised. Second, it suggests that racial interactions may
not be as improved as they appear, although overt racism has diminished. Third,
if this hypothesis is true, interracial tensions may affect performance and
overall efficiency and efficacy in the work place and social environments.
One may be
quick to point out that compensatory actions are not conscious and racial bias
is unintentional. A study using electroencephalography recorded error-related
negativity (ERN) waves. The hypothesis rested on the idea that the longer time
lapse in brain wave activity was associated with conflict-detection processes
that related to race-bias tendencies (Amodio et al., 2004). The results suggest
that although neural mechanisms are activated for a control response in biased
attitudes, this operates at an unconscious level. Therefore, personal
acknowledgement of racial attitudes is not pertinent to the recruitment of
compensatory behaviors. Collectively, whether the individual knowingly or
unknowingly works to control prejudiced reactions, this function is utilized
regardless, and highlights the seriousness of concern regarding these
attitudes.
Measuring
implicit, or unconscious, attitudes is an approach that has received
significant attention in social behavioral theories. The Implicit Associations
Test (IAT) is a popular tool for measuring in unconscious associations. The
test is designed with the assumption that automatic processing works quickly,
thus associations that are automatic will have a small latency period.
Conversely, associations with a longer lag time are considered to be somewhat
biased, in that the participant is striving for what an answer should be, rather than their personal,
unbiased reaction, much like the theory behind ERP scanning. The race version
of the IAT involves attitudinal measures and target concepts using exemplars
(Frantz et al., 2004). Participants are exposed to Black and White faces, in addition
to words with pleasant or unpleasant connotations. The test is administered on
a computer in four blocks. The blocks consist of pairings of Black or White
faces with “good” or “bad” associations. Participants are asked to press a
right or left key according to the categorization of the image displayed on the
screen. For example, if the left and right keys represent the categories of
“pleasant” and “unpleasant”, images on the screen will be placed into each
category according to the individual’s automatic associations. While this test
includes neutral images for control purposes, results across studies show an
overwhelming favoring of the categorization White+pleasant /Black+unpleasant
than the reverse Black+pleasant/White+unpleasant. This reveals implicit racial
bias of pro-White attitudes.
With all the
work done on Civil Rights and Affirmative Action, one might question, “How are
these values still so engrained?” Some studies looked at priming techniques and
their feedback on implicit racial bias. In one study, participants were divided
into two groups and each instructed to smile while looking at either Black or
White faces. The group that smiled when seeing Black faces were instructed to
relax their facial muscles while viewing White faces and vice versa. After the
priming period, each participant was instructed to hold a pencil between their
teeth in which their lips could not touch, thus producing a smile. The results
indicated that research suggested implicit racial bias is reduced when
participants are unconsciously smiling. (Ito et al., 2006). Additionally,
Dasgutpa and Greenwald (2004) conducted a series of three experiments to
explore the malleability of automatic attitudes. They proposed that, “several
new theories of attitude and empirical demonstrations suggest that attitudes
are multifaceted evaluations” (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2004). In their study, they measured whether
exposure to celebrated African American figures changed implicit racial
attitudes on the IAT. They found that, up to 24 hours post testing, there was
more positive association with Blacks and less pro-White bias. These findings
could have significant implications for the usefulness of the priming effect,
which will be touched upon later.
Of
course, the IAT is not a perfect test of implicit bias and there is controversy
about the accuracy of the measure. One argument is that the IAT measures
familiarity of objects rather than attitudinal responses (Kinoshita &
Peek-O’Leary, 2005). Naturally, the idea of same-group preference rests on the
assumption that one is more familiar with, and surrounded by, people of their
own race. Therefore, some say that it is
unclear whether the race IAT actually measures prejudice. Another argument is
that racial attitudes change depending on the circumstance. It is suggested
that, when comparing the IAT to BFP, or “bona fide pipeline” which is a priming
technique, the IAT primarily measures reactions to categories while the BFP
measures reactions to exemplars (Olson & Fazio, 2004). In a study that
compared these two measures, three-fourths of the participants showed prejudice
to Blacks on the IAT while only half did on the BFP. Therefore, a negative
connotation may be associated with Blacks as an overall population, but not to
specific people. Thus, when certain individuals are relegated to a specific
racial group, attitude changes, which may have positive or negative
consequences.
Also, as the
IAT has gained popularity individuals became more familiar with the purpose of
the measure. Consequently, while taking the test, White participants were
cognizant of the prejudicial attitudes the results revealed. As already
mentioned, there is a certain stigma associated with being labeled racist in
this country. In such measures like the IAT, more often than not, those who
would like to consider themselves unbiased show biased opinions. Therefore, as
this knowledge spread and the social stigma of being racist intensified,
participants skewed their answers in order to present an acceptable façade.
Thus, the validity of the IAT is questioned. Frantz et al. (2004) propose the
idea of stereotype threat on the IAT,
“some White people feel this threat when they believe their racial attitudes
are being tested, which undermines their performance on the test” (p.
1612). When this occurs, responses are
distorted, as their study found. However, they also found that certain
techniques of self-affirmation help to attenuate this effect. In essence,
Whites are aware that their group is often labeled racist. The higher biased
individuals or those more sensitive to the label are more likely to skew their
answers, as indicated on the IAT scores. Even when researchers attempt to mask
the true item they are measuring, overly sensitive individuals provide socially
acceptable answers. Interestingly, this study found that certain pretest
reaffirming measures that one does not intent to be outwardly racist helps to
alleviate this compensatory behavior (Franz et al., 2004).
It is
important to highlight here why Whites
try to hard to mask their bias. Indeed, the social and professional
ramifications are clear. Having the label of racist is, in most cases, a
detriment in many environments. Still, the depth of this issue is deeper than
merely a surface conflict of carrying a label. People also believe it to
reflect personal character. Guilt is a pervading undercurrent throughout the
topic of racism. Since our forefathers stepped foot on this continent, our
history is has been ladened with story upon story of acts of injustice, immoral
treatment and dehumanization. A constant throughout these accounts is the
dominating White man. Therefore, as issues of White privilege and inequality
are addressed, there becomes a collective building of rage in the Black
community and guilt in the White community. Guilt is a hugely motivating factor
that often moves individuals to act with moral intentions. One study found that
guilt was a primary emotional response in White participants when viewing Black
faces. Participants first completed the Attitudes Towards Blacks (ATB) scale.
After, frontal cortical asymmetry measured by electroencephalography (EEG)
monitored participant’s brain activity when viewing pictures from the
International Affective Picture System. This frontal region of the brain is
associated with approach/withdrawal behaviors, which also correspond to
punishment-reward behaviors and is highly correlated with the emotion guilt
(Amodio, Devine & Harmon-Jones, 2007). The researchers found that those who
displayed more prejudice also displayed more brain activity in expressing
guilt. The guilt emotion, consequently, was predictive of behaviors associated
with prejudice-reduction. Individuals who were prejudiced and felt guilty of
the prejudice were more motivated to act to reverse their responses than those
who did not carry the guilt. The authors also note that consequent behavior and
cognitive processes regarding this integration of information, and subsequent
responses, is complex and multifaceted. This speaks to the gravity and
difficulty interracial interactions can incite. It affects not only the
cognitive domain, but the emotional one as well. The two do not necessarily
communicate clearly. Where emotions and cognitions conflict, an individual
might feel lost, confused or downtrodden. This duality extends to political,
social, psychological and scientific issues. We must look for ways to promote
healthy interracial relationships and reduce the negative emotions associated
with interracial contact, on both sides.
Our society
today maintains a much higher acceptance of interracial friendships, marriages
and interactions than years past. Such exposure has effects on the individuals
who engage in these relationships. Elaborating on Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, a group of researchers
from Humboldt State University studied the effects of interethnic friendships
on implicit bias. The Contact Hypothesis
supports contact with outgroup populations to promote social awareness,
cooperative learning and an overall increased level of comfort with those
considered different from oneself. This happens when individuals of different
groups are in an environment where all individuals have equal status, common
goals, cooperative or interdependent living, and support from authorities
(Aberson, Shoemaker & Tomolillo, 2004). They found that interethnic
relationships help diminish implicit biases, and suggest that these
relationships may contribute to reducing overall prejudice. This evidence is
encouraging in the struggle to overcome racial barriers and is especially important
for places, like as the state of California that houses many diverse
populations. Building positive relationships between races and ethnicities can
be difficult, but may have lasting consequences that greatly outweigh the alternative.
Yet, not all
research is so encouraging. Another study that examined interracial
interactions yielded interesting results regarding racial bias. It elaborated
on previous research that indicated that Whites overcompensate when trying to
mask racial attitudes. The degree of this masking varies, of course, according to
a number of factors. These include true racist attitudes, level of guilt for
these attitudes, inhibition control and desire for social correctness. Of
interest in this study was the ability of Blacks to detect racial bias in
Whites, and how that affected Blacks perception of their White counterparts.
Building on the assumptions that there is innate racial prejudice in Whites
regarding Blacks, and that this prejudice is often covered up by executive
function control, an outward appearance of acting not racist is assumed to
manifest more in individuals with high racial bias than individuals of low
racial bias. Therefore, regulatory behaviors were assumed to appear to a great
extent in more prejudiced individuals. This proved to be true. However, the
degree to which Black participants discerned this masking displayed an ironic
effect. In fact, Blacks responded more positively and had a better perception
of the highly engaged, higher biased White participants than lower biased White
participants (Shelton et al., 2005). It can be reasoned that White individuals
with low bias did not feel the need to mask or overcompensate for their true
feelings. In a word, they did not feel the need to “front”. Some
overcompensation behaviors are easy to pick up on. However, this study points
to the ironic effect of that, when there is a high degree of masking, interracial
interaction does not necessarily promote healthy relations, but may perpetuate
the root of the problem.
The
implications of racial discrimination extend far beyond social circles. Workplace
dynamics are particularly important in virtually all sectors of society today.
Over the last two decades workplace discrimination has been a hotly contested
issue, with huge impacts on hiring practices and ethical issues. Researchers at
Emory University looked at how prejudiced views mediated opinions of
suitability of job qualifications with candidates of different backgrounds.
They used facial electromyography (EMG) to monitor facial expressions of
participants when viewing pictures of White and Black faces. The facial EMG
reading is linked to affective states and indicative of implicit attitudes
(Vanman et al., 2004). The researchers highlight that, “An important feature of
our study was that it was conducted at a university where the White student
population held fairly positive attitudes about African Americans,” (p. 712).
Once again, their results revealed that implicit racial attitudes motivated controlled
prejudice. This control of prejudice did not predict applicant selection.
Therefore, although an individual rated more prejudiced and made efforts to not
seem so, it was not related to the race of the applicant selected. In essence,
a White participant who did not want to appear racist was still less likely to
chose a Black, equally qualified candidate. What did emerge, however, was that
the White students who were less biased towards Blacks tended to select the
Black applicant. This study highlighted that where the IAT measure highlights
motivation for regulatory behavior, neural correlates of implicit attitudes are
more revealing and predictive of behavior.
One can almost
always find evidence contrary to what research suggests. Several examples involving
the IAT have already been mentioned.
This is also true on the biological side of the equation. Because brain
associations are difficult to interpret, even experts have a difficult time
pinpointing specific behaviors or emotions to a distinct location in the brain.
It is important to reexamine literature of neural components regarding
interracial interactions, but research in this area is tricky due to the fact
that one cannot directly manipulate, or impair, actual brain function. Instead,
researchers must turn to individuals with a priori brain damage. Two such
individuals with amygdala damage were tested on explicit and implicit race bias
measures. They highlight that, despite amygdala damage, there remains negative
bias towards Black faces as indicated on the IAT. This research suggests that
the amygdala activation is not necessarily essential in race bias as once
thought (Phelps et al., 2002). It is suggested that the fusiform face area
(FFA), another structure located in the temporal region, is responsible for
face recognition, while the amygdala is more attuned to environmental cues (and
threatening situations). Thus, measures of innate racial bias may come from
other parts of the brain, or may have a stronger correlation with
unfamiliarity, or when viewing outgroup, i.e. Black, faces.
Scientists and
experts in the field continue to ponder the intricate network of neural
connections when the brain is activated by specific behaviors and stimuli.
Because the PFC, including the DLPFC and the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC)
are interconnected and connected with the amygdala, it continues to elude us as
to what influences what when studying the neural correlates of automatic
beliefs regarding race. Both the amygdala and PFC have been reported to be
important components in racial stereotyping (Knutson et al., 2007), but each
part is responsible for different responses. In examining this complex
interplay, one must differentiate the neural components of the separate
entities of automatic beliefs, social cognizance, executive control mechanisms,
and compensatory behavior reactions. Each component may recruit a slightly
nuanced but connected part of the brain. When studies are conducted regarding
race and other implicit attitudes, various parts of the brain are activated
simultaneously. No one part is highlighted, making research in this area extremely
demanding.
It is evident
that there are a number of ways that racial prejudice, and the manner in which
it is investigated, is measured. With each attempt, there seem to be findings
that contest the evidence. Taken together, it is difficult to parse out “black
and white” truths when researching this topic. What emerges is not a simple,
linear relationship but a complex web of various factors, interpretations and contingencies.
Cunningham and Zelazo (2007) present two models. One that is a dual processing
model that differentiates between implicit and explicit evaluations and
subsequent responses. The other is an iterative-reprocessing model that
includes a feedback loop and reprocessing of new and old information. This
reevaluation is essential for personal evolution and social effectiveness. It
is the interplay between automatic affective responses and cognitive evaluation
that create a constant flux in attitudes and ideas of “correctness”.
From
influences of priming and alcohol, to neural and facial measures, to social
understandings and moral conduct, there is no simple model for demonstrating a
cut and dry explanation of neural processes in interracial interactions.
However, the Quadruple Process model approach takes into account deliberate
cognitive processes as well as automatic reactions on implicit measures (Beers
et al., 2008). This model attempts to integrate the evidence discussed in this
paper. The Quadruple Process model includes four primary processes: the
automatic activation associated with the stimulus (AC), detection of a socially
acceptable (appropriate) response (D), the overcoming of automatically biased
associations (OB), and the ability to guess a correct response, which may
either be random or systematic (G). The two fold study by Beers et al. (2008)
sought to disentangle the confusion over racial prejudice versus in-group
preference/familiarity, as well as account for neural activity associated with
social awareness, regulating behavior response, and guessing. The research
found that when viewing Black faces incites a negative response, compensation
behaviors arose when the implicit measure was detected (D). This was
accompanied by insula activity. The data reveals that activation of the
amygdala and the medial and right lateral orbitofrontal cortex is more
positively correlated with in-group favoritism and may indicate reward
expectancies. Alternatively, the data evidences that the caudate and left
lateral orbiofrontal cortex was associated with negative biases. The caudate,
which is responsible for preparing responses to stimuli, was thought to be
recruited for these purposes.
Ever-changing
and dynamic models are being developed to account for the evolving evidence from
research in interracial interactions. Social consciousness is becoming
increasingly important and the implication of this literature has potential for
long-term effects. Intermixing between races is inevitable in future
generations and research shows that prejudice among Whites is apparent starting
in children. The study by Baron and Banaji (2006) concludes that while Blacks
do not show a bias towards familiar outgroups, Whites show preference for their
race as early as 6 years old. They point out, “It is around age 10 that the
split between mean levels of conscious and less conscious racial attitudes
first emerges, pointing out the differential sensitivity of these two forms of
attitude to the societal demand to be unbiased in race-based evaluation.”
(Baron & Banaji, 2006, p. 57). While explicit racism seems to taper off
around age 10, an implicit form of racism emerges. Unfortunately, the
predominant attitude of “covering up” is not necessarily resolving racial
tension, but rather hindering our progression of a society as a whole.
As the demographics
of our country shift, Whites are decreasing in number and will soon no longer
be the majority. Blacks have a long-standing history of sustaining overt
prejudice and are shown to better handle outright discrimination than covert
practices. However, this is not true with Whites. Oblivious to many subliminal
epithets or ambiguous racial bias, Whites are shown to have more difficulty
with overt racial discrimination (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). Whether it is
obvious of subverted, prejudiced attitudes affect both Blacks and Whites. While
racial stressors compromise executive functions in Whites, Blacks’ experience
somatic symptoms of compromised physical health related issues. Racism not only leads to suboptimal hiring
practices and work place efficiency, but also acts as an impediment to a better
future on all fronts.
One approach
that may be helpful to focus on is our conscious effort to make racial
acceptance and appreciation a goal. Wheeler and Fiske (2005) found that different
social-cognitive goals influence amygdala activity. Instead of a bottom-up
model where the neural processes exact behavioral outcomes, they suggest a
top-down approach where goals determine the parts of the brain recruited in
response to stimuli. The goal in this study was to classify Black and White
faces according to social categorization, social individuation and simple
visual inspection. Brain activity was monitored while participants reasoned
through the differentiation, and the researches found that in order for the
amygdala to be activated, a certain depth of processing must occur. Whether a stimulus, or an individual was
considered ingroup or outgroup influenced what part of the brain was triggered.
Therefore, depending on the perception and the categorization task, social
cognitions changed with the intended goal. This extends to the practice of
encouraging interracial interaction because, if emphasis is placed on seeing
one of a different race as an individual and not a category, individuals may be
more open to learning and sharing with those who belong to the outgroup. In
turn, it could have exponential effects in embracing individuals of different
races and prospering, as opposed to being inhibited, by their presence and
contributions.
A goal
directed top-down model might eventually influence automatic encoding of racial
categorization. Although this encoding happens in less than a second,
differentiation of between in-group and outgroup sets, which occurs around 250
ms, is secondary to differentiation
between facial and nonfacial stimuli which occurs at approximately 170 ms (Ito,
Thompson, & Cacioppo, 2004) Although this difference is not much,
ingroup/outgroup differentiation does not automatically imply bias. Researchers
found that evaluative bias not emerge until 500 ms, when affect influenced
categorization tasks. This bias is more easily equated to a group where some
members may reflect certain stereotypic qualities, as opposed to individual
exemplars that may exhibit superior qualities outside of a stereotypic
perspective. Therefore, a goal of recognizing persons in outgroup populations
as individuals may influence feedback operations that will eventually change
the implicit attitude of the outgroup members as a whole.
Goal directed
initiatives, contextual priming, and various models of predicting and
explaining behavior all point to the subjectivity of measuring interracial
interactions. Although there is definite salience that Whites exhibit a
tremendous amount of ingroup bias on both implicit and neurological measures,
the shaping of statistics and subsequent interpretations makes it difficult to wrap
all these findings into one sound conclusion. However, one facet yet to be
mentioned is the influence of self-generated information processing on
stereotype activation. If an individual has more ease retrieving information
regarding positive associations with Blacks, one is more likely to view Blacks
in a positive manner (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2005). Making these associations more accessible and
more prevalent in our society will aid in building positive interactions in our
interracial communities. Given a positive context in which Blacks are viewed
will in turn influence positive implicit associations. Decreased implicit
racist attitudes will decrease the need for compensatory reactions on explicit
measures. The higher concordance between implicit and explicit attitudes will
alleviate impaired executive function, allowing more cognitive energies to be focused
on tasks at hand. Reduced racism, either implicit or explicit, will also lead
to guilt reduction. This will contribute to overall greater productivity,
social harmony and, quite possibly, greatly improve the mental and physical
wellbeing of our country’s people.
Implications
for these findings are useful when we consider recent historical events. Racial
attitudes are shown to be malleable. Because of the constant bombardment of
negative images associated with Blacks, an automatic feeling of discomfort or
threat associated with this race is rampant and pervasive throughout our
society. However, while priming seems to work both ways, association with
positive African American exemplars seems to lessen a pro-White bias. More and
more Black persons are highlighted for good and courageous deeds. With our new
President-elect, Barak Obama, and first lady, Michelle Obama, this trend will
hopefully continue and have a trickle down effect for Whites and Blacks alike.
Interracial interaction will continue to grow in our society. It is time that
we “face the science” and own up to our prejudices in order to work more
effectively with one another. As neuroscience, psychology, and politics
converge, it will infiltrate nearly every facet of our communities. We still have
a long way to go, but with the help of experts across various fields, and
races, working together, we may just see our country embody the ideal of
liberty and justice for all. We may one day truly become the United States of America.
Aberson, C.L., Shoemaker, C. & Tomolillo, C.
(2004). Implicit bias and contact: the role of interethnic friendships. Journal of Social Psychology. 144.
335-47.
Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E., Devine P.G.,
Curtin, J.J., Hartley, S.L & Covert,
A.E.(2004). Neural signals for the
detection of unintentional race bias. Psychological Science. 15. 88-93.
Amodio, D.M., Devine, P.G. & Harmon-Jones, E.
(2007) A dynamic model of guilt implications
for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science. 18. 524-30.
Baron, A.S. & Banajii, M.R. (2006). The
development of implicit attitudes. Evidence of race
evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science. 17. 53-8.
Bartholow, B.D., Dickter, C.L. & Sestir, M.A.
(2006). Stereotype activation and control of
race bias: cognitive control of inhibition and its impairment by alcohol. Journal of Perspective Social Psychology.
90. 272-87.
Cunningham, W.A., Johnson M.K., Raye, C.L.,
Gatenby, J., Gore, J.C. & Banagi, M.R. (2004)
Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science. 15. 806-13.
Dasgupta, N. & Greenwald, A.G. (2001). On the
malleability of automatic attitudes: combating
automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal on Perspective Social Psychology. 81. 800-14.
Devine, P.G., Plant, E.A., Amodio, D.M.,
Harmon-Jones, E. & Vance, S.L. (2002). The regulation
of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal on Perspective Social Psychology.
82. 835-48.
Frantz, C.M., Cuddy, A.J., Burnett, M., Ray, H.
& Hart, A. (2004). A threat in the computer:
the race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience. Perspective Social Psychology Bulletin. 30. 1611-24.
Gawronski B & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2005).
Accessibility effects on implicit social cognition:
the role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. Journal of Perspective
Social Psychology. 89. 672-85.
Hart, A.J., Whalen, P.J., Shin, L.M., McInerney,
S.C., Fischer, H. & Rauch, S.L., (2000). Differential
response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport. 11. 2351-5.
Harris, L.T., Fiske, S.T. (2006). Dehumanizing the
lowest of the low: neuroimaging responses
to extreme out-groups. Psychological
Science. 17. 847-53.
Ito, T.A, Thompson, E., & Cacioppo, J.T.
(2004). Tracking the timecourse of social perception:
the effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials. Perspective Social Psychology Bulletin.
30. 1267-80.
Ito, T.A., Chiao, K.W., Devine P.G., Lorig, T.S.
& Cacioppo J.T. (2006). The influence of
facial feedback on race bias. Psychological
Science. 17. 256-61.
Kinoshita S.& Peek-O’Leary M. (2005). Does the
compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect? Psychological Bulletin Review. 12. 442-52.
Knuston, K.M., Mah, L. Manly, C.F. Grafman, J.
(2007). Neural correlates of automatic beliefs
about gender and race. Human Brain Mapp.
28. 915-30.
Olson, M.A & Fazio, R.H. (2003). Relations
between implicit measures of prejudice: what are we measuring? Psychological Science. 14. 636-9.
Phelps, E.A., O’Connor, K.J., Cunningham, W.A.,
Funayama, E.S., Gatenby, J.C., Gore, J.C.
& Banaji, M.R. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Cognitive Neuroscience. 12. 729-38.
Phelps, E.A., Cannistraci, C.J. & Cunningham,
W.A. (2003). Intact performance on an indirect
measure of race bias following amygdala damage. Neuropsyhchologia. 41.
203-8.
Richeson, J.A., Baird, A.A., Gordon, H.L.,
Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L., Trawalter, S. &
Shelton, J.N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on
executive function. Natural Neuroscience.
6. 1323-8.
Richeson J.A. & Shelton, J.N. (2003). When
prejudice does not pay: effects of interracial contact
on executive function. Psychological
Science. 14. 287-90.
Richeson, J.A. & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do
interracial interactions impair executive function?
A resource depletion account. Journal of
Perspective Social Psychology.
88. 934-47.
Salvatore J. & Shelton, J.N. (2007). Cognitive
costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological Science. 18. 810-5.
Shelton, J.N., Richeson J.A., Salvatore, J. &
Trawalter, S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial bias
during interracial interactions. Psychological
Science. 16. 397-402.
Suedfeld, P. (2004). Racism in the brain; Or is it
racism on the brain. Psychological Inquiry. 15. 298-302.
Vanman, E.J., Saltz, J.L., Nathan, L.R. &
Warren, J.A. (2004). Racial discrimination by low-prejudiced
whites. Facial movements as implicit measures of attitudes related to behavior. Psychological Science. 15. 711-4.
Wheeler, M.E. & Fiske, S.T. (2005). Controlling
racial prejudice: social-cognitive goals affect
amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychological
Science. 16. 56-63.
About the Author
Anna Hickner is a graduate fellow at Diversity Spectrum.
She
is currently a doctoral student at the Center for Professional Psychology at George
Washington University
where she serves as a first year representative on the Faculty Committee, as
well as acts as a liaison between GWU and Diversity Spectrum.
As an Alumnae of
Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana, Anna obtained her Bachelor’s
degree in Psychology with minors in Biology and Spanish and graduated summa cum laude. During her college
career, Anna also had the fortune to study in Spain
and Honduras,
participate in choir and the step team, and conduct research with the Center
for Women’s Intercultural Leadership.
After graduating Anna volunteered in Costa
Rica as a school psychologist in a boarding
school for impoverished teenaged girls. She was also recognized and published
in the United States Catholic Mission Association Magazine for
her musical compositions for the school’s 9th grade graduation.
Her
current interests in psychology include multicultural/diversity issues, women’s
health, and she hopes to eventually work on an international level. In her free time Anna enjoys reading, working
out, movies, traveling, and playing piano. Anna is very excited to be part of
the Diversity Spectrum team!
|
