Lecture 22: Neuroscience Perspectives

Question 1

three main values of neuroscientific approaches to intergroup relations

Answer 1

• timing information
• teasing apart processes that appear to be similar
• resolving competing predictions or perspectives

Question 2

timing and neuroscientific methods

Answer 2

Neuroscientific methods can reveal the timing of various psychological processes that is not possible using either self-report or even implicit measures like the IAT

Question 3

Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender study method

Answer 3

White participants passively viewed images of male and female Black and White people. Some categorized the images based on gender, and others categorized them based on race. ERPs were also tracked during the judgment process

Question 4

Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender study findings

Answer 4

ERPs revealed differences in the processing of race within 100 ms and based on gender within 200 ms

Question 5

Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender conclusions

Answer 5

• Demonstrates that social categorization is fast and therefore likely automatic
• Has larger implications for thinking about how such processes could or could not ever be consciously controlled
• Social categorization may occur so quickly that finding a way to stop the process is unrealistic

Question 6

connections between neuroscience and other domains

Answer 6

Social neuroscience can use the larger literature in cognitive neuroscience to show connections between various psychological processes. This information can advance theory and lead to new insights into how such processes operate

Question 7

N200

Answer 7

has been associated in other work with response selection and conflict processes

Question 8

larger N200 response to ingroup targets in race categorization tasks

Answer 8

may reflect response conflict associated with making an ingroup classification

Question 9

Gilbert et al., 2012 stereotypes vs. prejudice study method

Answer 9

looked at the difference in how the brain treats the process of stereotypes vs. intergroup prejudice. On each trial, White participants saw two faces that were either Black, both White or one Black and one White
In some blocks, they made a stereotypical judgment (Which person is more athletic?) and in others, they made a prejudicial judgment (Which person would you rather have as a friend?). After completing the forced-choice task in the fMRI scanner, participants completed two IATs (one about attitudes & one about stereotypes)

Question 10

attitudes IAT

Answer 10

measuring the ease with which White and Black faces could be paired with positive vs. negative words

Question 11

stereotypes IAT

Answer 11

measuring the ease with which Black and white faces could be paired with words related to mental vs. physical

Question 12

Gilbert et al., 2012 stereotypes vs. prejudice study findings

Answer 12

Provide neuroscientific evidence that the friendship and trade trials rely on different brain areas

Question 13

stereotypes vs. prejudice follow-up analyses

Answer 13

found that one brain region was differentially associated with the two IAT scores depending on the judgment that participants were making

Question 14

friendship trials and brain activity

Answer 14

activation in this region was more associated with evaluative IAT scores (good-bad)

Question 15

athletic trials and brain activity

Answer 15

activation in this region was more associated with stereotype IAT scores (mental-physical)

Question 16

racial paralysis

Answer 16

people high in motivation not to appear prejudiced work hard to avoid cross-racial comparisons

Question 17

Norton et al., 2012 racial paralysis study method

Answer 17

The task was very similar to the Gilbert et al. study, but participants were also given the option to opt out of making the judgement

Question 18

Norton et al., 2012 racial paralysis study findings

Answer 18

Participants were more likely to opt out of trials involving faces of different races, particularly when making judgments related to stereotypical traits

Question 19

neurological explanations for racial paralysis

Answer 19

An fMRI study where participants completed the same task found greater activation in a particular brain region for cross-race over same-race trials. This was particularly true when judgments were stereotypically-relevant vs. stereotype-irrelevant

Question 20

Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 group inclusion study method

Answer 20

The researchers used a task to disentangle whether people rely more on similarity or group structure when evaluating new people as potential group members. Participants first indicated their own beliefs about policy issues. They then learned about policy beliefs for 3 other targets. They had to align themselves with one of the targets by choosing to side with them in an unknown policy position

Question 21

Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 group inclusion study findings

Answer 21

Across conditions, the latent structure of people’s preferences made it more or less easy to form a group with one of the targets. Results found that as the distractor becomes more similar to the participants/ target B, preferences for target B increase

Question 22

Dyadic similarity

Answer 22

all that matters is similarity to me, so A & B are =

Question 23

Latent similarity

Answer 23

using the behaviour of others to infer a consensus or group structure

Question 24

neurological mechanism for latent similarity

Answer 24

fMRI analyses found greater use of this latent structure was associated with a region that is key to general structure learning tasks

Question 25

Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 study takeaways

Answer 25

the way that we think about other people is highly similar to the way we think in general

Question 26

mobile measurements

Answer 26

taking EEG out of the lab and using it to measure naturalistic processes

Question 27

inter-brain synchrony

Answer 27

putting two people in an EEG and determining the extent of correspondence between their brain activity

Question 28

inter-brain synchrony and collaboration

Answer 28

Inter-brain synchrony predicts collective performance