Lecture 22: Neuroscience Perspectives Flashcards
three main values of neuroscientific approaches to intergroup relations
- timing information
- teasing apart processes that appear to be similar
- resolving competing predictions or perspectives
timing and neuroscientific methods
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
Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender study method
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
Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender study findings
ERPs revealed differences in the processing of race within 100 ms and based on gender within 200 ms
Ito & Urland, 2003 ERP and race/gender conclusions
- 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
connections between neuroscience and other domains
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
N200
has been associated in other work with response selection and conflict processes
larger N200 response to ingroup targets in race categorization tasks
may reflect response conflict associated with making an ingroup classification
Gilbert et al., 2012 stereotypes vs. prejudice study method
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)
attitudes IAT
measuring the ease with which White and Black faces could be paired with positive vs. negative words
stereotypes IAT
measuring the ease with which Black and white faces could be paired with words related to mental vs. physical
Gilbert et al., 2012 stereotypes vs. prejudice study findings
Provide neuroscientific evidence that the friendship and trade trials rely on different brain areas
stereotypes vs. prejudice follow-up analyses
found that one brain region was differentially associated with the two IAT scores depending on the judgment that participants were making
friendship trials and brain activity
activation in this region was more associated with evaluative IAT scores (good-bad)
athletic trials and brain activity
activation in this region was more associated with stereotype IAT scores (mental-physical)
racial paralysis
people high in motivation not to appear prejudiced work hard to avoid cross-racial comparisons
Norton et al., 2012 racial paralysis study method
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
Norton et al., 2012 racial paralysis study findings
Participants were more likely to opt out of trials involving faces of different races, particularly when making judgments related to stereotypical traits
neurological explanations for racial paralysis
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
Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 group inclusion study method
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
Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 group inclusion study findings
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
Dyadic similarity
all that matters is similarity to me, so A & B are =
Latent similarity
using the behaviour of others to infer a consensus or group structure
neurological mechanism for latent similarity
fMRI analyses found greater use of this latent structure was associated with a region that is key to general structure learning tasks
Lau, Cikara et al., 2020 study takeaways
the way that we think about other people is highly similar to the way we think in general
mobile measurements
taking EEG out of the lab and using it to measure naturalistic processes
inter-brain synchrony
putting two people in an EEG and determining the extent of correspondence between their brain activity
inter-brain synchrony and collaboration
Inter-brain synchrony predicts collective performance
