Got Pain? Racial Bias in Perceptions of Pain

In the days of slavery, White people assumed that Black people felt less pain than did White people. This belief was used to justify slavery; it was also used to justify the inhumane treatment of Black men and women in medical research. Today, White Americans continue to believe that Black people feel less pain than do White people although this belief has changed from its historical, explicitly racist form. Racial attitudes do not moderate the bias, suggesting that racial bias in perceptions of others' pain is not rooted (solely) in racial prejudice. Moreover, Black Americans too believe that Black people feel less pain than do White people, suggesting that the bias is no longer grounded in intergroup dynamics. Rather, contemporary forms of this bias stem from assumptions that Black people face more hardship and “thus” can withstand more pain and assumptions that Black people's bodies are not only different but also superhuman. Although this new instantiation of the pain perception bias is decidedly more “benevolent”, it can nonetheless lead to negative outcomes. Here, we consider how racial bias in perceptions of others' pain may affect racial disparities in health care and intergroup relations more generally. We also discuss potential avenues for interventions aimed at preventing this bias among children and reducing this bias among adults.     

Trait ratings of the in-group and out-group with minimal acquaintance: Differentiation and out-group favorability

Malloy et al. (2011) studied trait judgments and behavior of Black and White men during face-to-face interactions at zero-acquaintance and found that intergroup responses were asymmetric. The present research extends that work. In Study 1 Black and White men observed two dyadic interactions from the Malloy et al (2011) study and rated in-group targets’ traits. In Study 2, using the type generation paradigm, Black and White males and females generated types of persons from their racial in-group or out-group and rated their traits. Blacks differentiated the unique traits of Whites to a greater extent than Whites differentiated the unique traits of Blacks. Blacks and Whites judged out-group targets’ traits more positively than those of in-group members, and both differentiated the unique traits of in-group members more than out-group members.     

Selective responses to threat: the roles of race and gender in decisions to shoot

Extensive work over the past decade has shown that race can bias perceptions and responses to threat. However, the previous work focused almost exclusively on responses to men and overlooked how gender and the interaction of race and gender influence decisions regarding use of force. In the current article, two studies examine the implications of gender (Study 1) and both race and gender (Study 2) for decisions to shoot criminal suspects on a computerized simulation. In Study 1, participants were biased away from shooting White female suspects compared to White male suspects. In Study 2, White participants showed a pronounced bias toward shooting Black men but a bias away from shooting Black women and White ingroup members, providing evidence of a behavioral threat-related response specific to outgroup men stereotypically associated with aggression. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity

People often find it more difficult to distinguish ethnic out-group members compared with ethnic in-group members. A functional approach to social cognition suggests that this bias may be eliminated when out-group members display threatening facial expressions. In the present study, 192 White participants viewed Black and White faces displaying either neutral or angry expressions and later attempted to identify previously seen faces. Recognition accuracy for neutral faces showed the out-group homogeneity bias, but this bias was entirely eliminated for angry Black faces. Indeed, when participants' cognitive processing capacity was constrained, recognition accuracy was greater for angry Black faces than for angry White faces, demonstrating an out-group heterogeneity bias.     

Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: findings across multiple participant and target groups

Emotions are increasingly being recognised as important aspects of prejudice and intergroup behaviour. Specifically, emotional mediators play a key role in the process by which intergroup contact reduces prejudice towards outgroups. However, which particular emotions are most important for prejudice reduction, as well as the consistency and generality of emotion–prejudice relations across different in-group–out-group relations, remain uncertain. To address these issues, in Study 1 we examined six distinct positive and negative emotions as mediators of the contact–prejudice relations using representative samples of U.S. White, Black, and Asian American respondents (N?=?639). Admiration and anger (but not other emotions) were significant mediators of the effects of previous contact on prejudice, consistently across different perceiver and target ethnic groups. Study 2 examined the same relations with student participants and gay men as the out-group. Admiration and disgust mediated the effect of past contact on attitude. The findings confirm that not only negative emotions (anger or disgust, based on the specific types of threat perceived to be posed by an out-group), but also positive, status- and esteem-related emotions (admiration) mediate effects of contact on prejudice, robustly across several different respondent and target groups.     

Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance

The present work examined the relationship between people's own interpretations of why they avoid intergroup contact and their interpretations of why out-groups avoid intergroup contact. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that Whites and Blacks would like to have more contact with the out-group but believe the out-group does not want to have contact with them. Studies 3-5 show that Whites and Blacks make divergent explanations about their own and their potential out-group partner's failure to initiate contact. Specifically, individuals explained their own inaction in terms of their fear of being rejected because of their race but attributed the out-group members' inaction to their lack of interest. Study 6 examined the behavioral consequences of this self-other bias. Finally, Study 7 applied theoretical work on the extended contact hypothesis to explore a means to reduce this self- other bias. The implications of these studies for improving intergroup interactions are discussed.     

Do unto others as others have done unto you?: Perceiving sexism influences women's evaluations of stigmatized racial groups

The present research examines how making discrimination salient influences stigmatized group members' evaluations of other stigmatized groups. Specifically, three studies examine how salient sexism affects women's attitudes toward racial minorities. White women primed with sexism expressed more pro-White (relative to Black and Latino) self-report (Studies 1 and 3) and automatic (Study 2) intergroup bias, compared with White women who were not primed with sexism. Furthermore, group affirmation reduced the pro-White/antiminority bias White women expressed after exposure to sexism (Study 3), suggesting the mediating role of social identity threat. Overall, the results suggest that making discrimination salient triggers social identity threat, rather than a sense of common disadvantage, among stigmatized group members, leading to the derogation of other stigmatized groups. Implications for relations among members of different stigmatized groups are discussed.     

Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men

Two studies examined the effects of cross-group friendships on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men. In Study 1, the authors tested the effects of cross-group friendships with gay men on out-group attitudes, meta-attitudinal strength, and attitude accessibility. The authors simultaneously explored mediational effects of intergroup anxiety. Path analysis showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes, and the effects on all 3 criterion variables were mediated by intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, the authors sought to replicate the basic results of Study 1, while additionally exploring mediational effects of closeness of cross-group friendship and moderational effects of perceived group typicality. Structural equation modeling showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes; friendships had indirect effects on all 3 criterion variables, via closeness of friendship and intergroup anxiety. Closeness of friendship only predicted lower intergroup anxiety, however, when the out-group friend was perceived as highly typical. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the nature of out-group attitudes more completely when evaluating the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice.     

Intergroup time bias and racialized social relations

Within the framework of intergroup relations, the authors analyzed the time people spent evaluating ingroup and outgroup members. They hypothesized that White participants take longer to evaluate White targets than Black targets. In four experiments, White participants were slower to form impressions of White than of Black people; that is, they showed an intergroup time bias (ITB). In Study 1 (N = 60), the ITB correlated with implicit prejudice and homogeneity. Study 2 (N = 60) showed that the ITB was independent of the type of trait in question (nonstereotypical vs. stereotypical). Study 3 (N = 100) demonstrated that ITB correlates with racism measured 3 months beforehand, is independent of motivation to control prejudice, and is not an epiphenomenon of homogeneity. In Study 4 (N = 40) participants not only showed the ITB in a racialized social context but also displayed it following a minimal group manipulation.     

Status-based asymmetry in intergroup responses: Implications for intergroup reconciliation

We studied intergroup responses as a function of relative intergroup status and familiarity. In Study 1, 34 African Americans and 34 European Americans interacted with two members of the out-group in separate, 20-min dyadic interactions. Intergroup perception, affect, and behavior were asymmetric; Blacks differentiated the traits of and the quality of interactions with Whites, whereas Whites did not make these differentiations. Blacks and Whites predicted that different out-group partners perceived them similarly. Study 2 showed that the failure to differentiate an out-group member is due to intergroup status differences. Asymmetric intergroup responses pose a barrier to intergroup reconciliation and explain, in part, why increased interracial contact has not eradicated disparities in life outcomes for Black Americans.     

Ethnicity of Dating Partner,Pressure for Thinness,and Body Dissatisfaction

Two studies explored the relation between ethnicity, attitudes toward body weight, dating behavior, and female body satisfaction. Study 1 found that White men expressed a lighter female ideal weight, more resentment about their girlfriend's weight, and more pressure for their partner's thinness than did Black men. Study 2 found that regardless of their own ethnicity, women who dated White men had lower body mass index (BMI), lower ideal weights, and reported experiencing lower levels of body acceptance by their dating partners. This lack of acceptance was associated with lower levels of body satisfaction. These results support the view that the differing aesthetic preferences of Black and White men contribute to differing levels of body satisfaction among Black and White women.     

Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women

Research on racial and gender stereotyping typically focuses on the role of one of these social categories at a time rather than race/gender combinations. We suggest that the relative non-prototypicality of Black women’s race and gender results in their “invisibility” relative to White women and to Black and White men ( [Fryberg and Townsend, 2008] and [Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, 2008]). Two studies address whether Black women go “unnoticed” and their voices “unheard,” by examining memory for Black women’s faces and speech contributions. We found that photos of Black women were least likely to be recognized (Study 1), and statements said by a Black woman in a group discussion were least likely to be correctly attributed (Study 2) compared to Black men and White women and White men. The importance and implications of invisibility as a unique form of discrimination are discussed.     

Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups

This article examines moral identity and reactions to out-groups during intergroup conflict Four studies suggest that a highly self-important moral identity is associated with an expansive circle of moral regard toward out-group members (Study 1) and more favorable attitudes toward relief efforts to aid out-group members (Study 2). Study 3 examines moral identity and national identity influences on the provision of financial assistance to out-groups. Study 4 investigates the relationship between moral identity and (a) the willingness to harm innocent out-group members not involved in the conflict and (b) moral judgments of revenge and forgiveness toward out-group members directly responsible for transgressions against the in-group. Results are discussed in terms of self-regulatory mechanisms that mitigate in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.     

The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety

Drawing on previous theorizing from both the prejudice and social anxiety literatures, a model of the antecedents and implications of intergroup anxiety is offered. It is argued that a lack of positive previous experiences with outgroup members creates negative expectancies about interracial interactions, which result in intergroup anxiety. This anxiety is posited to result in heightened hostility toward outgroup members and a desire to avoid interacting with outgroup members. Study 1 examined White participants' responses to interacting with Black people using a range of self-report measures; the associations between these responses supported the relationships outlined in the model. Study 2 explored White participants' responses to an anticipated interaction with a Black person or a White person. The findings revealed that high levels of anxiety about an interaction with a Black person, but not a White person, were associated with a lower likelihood of returning for the interaction.     

Emotions in context: Anger causes ethnic bias but not gender bias in men but not women

Emotions influence information processing because they are assumed to carry valuable information. We predict that induced anger will increase ethnic but not gender intergroup bias because anger is related to conflicts for resources, and ethnic groups typically compete for resources, whereas gender groups typically engage in relations of positive interdependence. Furthermore, we also predict that this increased ethnic intergroup bias should only be observed among men because men show more group‐based reactions to intergroup conflict than women do. Two studies, with 65 and 120 participants, respectively, indeed show that anger induction increases ethnic but not gender intergroup bias and only for men. Intergroup bias was measured with an implicit measure. In Study 2, we additionally predict (and find) that fear induction does not change ethnic or gender intergroup bias because intergroup bias is a psychological preparation for collective action and fear is not associated with taking action against out‐groups. We conclude that the effect of anger depends on its specific informational potential in a particular intergroup context. These results highlight that gender groups differ on a crucial point from ethnic groups and call for more attention to the effect of people's gender in intergroup relations research. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The out-group must not be so bad after all: the effects of disclosure,typicality, and salience on intergroup bias

Two contact studies integrated the personalization (M. B. Brewer & N. Miller, 1984) and category-based models (M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown. 1986), proposing that greater reduction of intergroup bias can be achieved by the interactive effects of disclosure and typicality (Study 1) or disclosure and salience (Study 2). In Study 1 the impact of self-disclosure and typicality combined interactively to augment intergroup acceptance. Study 2 extended these findings by examining the combined effects of disclosure and category salience. It also explored the mediational roles of group-relevant and person-relevant information on the effects of typicality and disclosure, respectively. Results showed that during cooperative dyadic out-group contact, self-disclosure, typicality, and salience were key factors for reducing bias toward new members of that out-group category.     

“Ain’t I a Woman?”: Towards an Intersectional Approach to Person Perception and Group-based Harms

Our research examines whether intersecting racial and gender identities affect person perception. Predominantly White undergraduates (292) from a large northeastern U.S. university categorized and rated pictures (Study 1) and videos (Study 2) of Black and White men and women. We supported three hypotheses: 1) intersectionality affects person perception processes, leading to gender categorization errors for Black women; 2) “Blackness” and “maleness” are highly associated for Black male and female targets; and, 3) women are perceived as unattractive proportionally to their perceived masculinity, leading Black women to be rated as less attractive than other women. We suggest that intersectional approaches are required in order to fully understand person perception. Further, the Black/male association may lead to unique harms for Black women.     

Sex differences in in-group cooperation vary dynamically with competitive conditions and outcomes

Men's but not women's investment in a public goods game varied dynamically with the presence or absence of a perceived out-group. Three hundred fifty-four (167 male) young adults participated in multiple iterations of a public goods game under intergroup and individual competition conditions. Participants received feedback about whether their investments in the group were sufficient to earn a bonus to be shared among all in-group members. Results for the first trial confirm previous research in which men's but not women's investments were higher when there was a competing out-group. We extended these findings by showing that men's investment in the in-group varied dynamically by condition depending on the outcome of the previous trial: In the group condition, men, but not women, decreased spending following a win (i.e., earning an in-group bonus). In the individual condition, men, but not women, increased spending following a win. We hypothesize that these patterns reflect a male bias to calibrate their level of in-group investment such that they sacrifice only what is necessary for their group to successfully compete against a rival group.     

Why egalitarianism might be good for your health: physiological thriving during stressful intergroup encounters

We compared how evaluations by out-group members and evaluations by in-group members affected participants' stress responses--their neuroendocrine reactivity, cognitive appraisals, and observed anxiety--and how participants' implicit racial bias moderated these responses. Specifically, White participants completed measures of racial bias prior to the experiment. During the experiment, participants performed speech and serial subtraction tasks in front of White or Black interviewers. Several saliva samples were obtained, and they were assayed for catabolic ("breaking down") and anabolic ("building up") hormones. Interviewers' race and participants' racial bias interacted in predicting stress responses. When interviewers were Black, lower racial bias was linked with more salutary stress responses: lower threat appraisals, less anxiety, and increased levels of anabolic hormones. When interviewers were White, no effect was found for threat appraisals or anabolic hormones, and the reverse effect was observed for anxiety. Egalitarianism may have physical and psychological benefits for people living in a diverse society.     

Contextual Variation in Automatic Evaluative Bias to Racially-Ambiguous Faces

Three studies examined the implicit evaluative associations activated by racially-ambiguous Black-White faces. In the context of both Black and White faces, Study 1 revealed a graded pattern of bias against racially-ambiguous faces that was weaker than the bias to Black faces but stronger than that to White faces. Study 2 showed that significant bias was present when racially-ambiguous faces appeared in the context of only White faces, but not in the context of only Black faces. Study 3 demonstrated that context produces perceptual contrast effects on racial-prototypicality judgments. Racially-ambiguous faces were perceived as more prototypically Black in a White-only than mixed-race context, and less prototypically Black in a Black-only context. Conversely, they were seen as more prototypically White in a Black-only than mixed context, and less prototypically White in a White-only context. The studies suggest that both race-related featural properties within a face (i.e., racial ambiguity) and external contextual factors affect automatic evaluative associations.