The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases

The current work tested whether external motivation to respond without prejudice toward Blacks is associated with biased patterns of selective attention that reflect a threat response to Black individuals. In a dot-probe attentional bias paradigm, White participants with low and high external motivation to respond without prejudice toward Blacks (i.e., low-EM and high-EM individuals, respectively) were presented with pairs of White and Black male faces that bore either neutral or happy facial expressions; on each trial, the faces were displayed for either 30 ms or 450 ms. The findings were consistent with those of previous research on threat and attention: High-EM participants revealed an attentional bias toward neutral Black faces presented for 30 ms, but an attentional bias away from neutral Black faces presented for 450 ms. These attentional biases were eliminated, however, when the faces displayed happy expressions. These findings suggest that high levels of external motivation to avoid prejudice result in anxious arousal in response to Black individuals, and that this response affects even basic attentional processes.     

Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat

We propose that social attitudes, and in particular implicit prejudice, bias people's perceptions of the facial emotion displayed by others. To test this hypothesis, we employed a facial emotion change-detection task in which European American participants detected the offset (Study 1) or onset (Study 2) of facial anger in both Black and White targets. Higher implicit (but not explicit) prejudice was associated with a greater readiness to perceive anger in Black faces, but neither explicit nor implicit prejudice predicted anger perceptions regarding similar White faces. This pattern indicates that European Americans high in implicit racial prejudice are biased to perceive threatening affect in Black but not White faces, suggesting that the deleterious effects of stereotypes may take hold extremely early in social interaction.     

Removing the own-race bias in face recognition by attentional shift using fixation crosses to diagnostic features: An eye-tracking study

Hills and Lewis (2011) have demonstrated that the own-race bias in face recognition can be reduced or even removed by guiding participants' attention and potentially eye movements to the most diagnostic visual features. Using the same old/new recognition paradigm as Hills and Lewis, we recorded Black and White participants' eye movements whilst viewing Black and White faces following fixation crosses that preceded the bridge of the nose (between the eyes) or the tip of the nose. White faces were more accurately recognized when following high fixation crosses (that preceded the bridge of the nose) than when following low fixation crosses. The converse was true for Black faces. These effects were independent of participant race. The fixation crosses attracted the first fixation but had less effect on other eye-tracking measures. Furthermore, the location of the first fixation was predictive of recognition accuracy. These results are consistent with an attentional allocation model of the own-race bias in face recognition and highlight the importance of the first fixation for face perception (cf. Hsiao & Cottrell, 2008).     

Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention

The present research investigated the extent to which the stereotype that young Black men are threatening and dangerous has become so robust and ingrained in the collective American unconscious that Black men now capture attention, much like evolved threats such as spiders and snakes. Specifically, using a dot-probe detection paradigm, White participants revealed biased attention toward Black faces relative to White faces (Study 1). Because the faces were presented only briefly (30-ms), the bias is thought to reflect the early engagement of attention. The attentional bias was eliminated, however, when the faces displayed averted eye-gaze (Study 2). That is, when the threat communicated by the Black faces was attenuated by a relevant, competing socio-emotional cue—in this case, averted eye-gaze—they no longer captured perceivers’ attention. Broader implications for social cognition, as well as public policies that reify these prevailing perceptions of young Black men are discussed.     

Impressions at the intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay + Black = likable?

How do perceivers combine information about perceptually obvious categories (e.g., Black) with information about perceptually ambiguous categories (e.g., gay) during impression formation? Given that gay stereotypes are activated automatically, we predicted that positive gay stereotypes confer evaluative benefits to Black gay targets, even when perceivers are unaware of targets' sexual orientations. Participants in Study 1 rated faces of White straight men as more likable than White gay men, but rated Black men in the opposite manner: gays were liked more than straights. In Study 2, participants approaching Whites during an approach–avoidance task responded faster to straights than gays, whereas participants approaching Blacks responded faster to gays than straights. These findings highlight the striking extent to which less visible categories, like sexual orientation, subtly influence person perception and determine the explicit and implicit evaluations individuals form about others.     

Anxiety and terrorism: Automatic stereotypes affect visual attention and recognition memory for White and Middle Eastern faces

Automatic stereotypes and emotional state can affect cognitive processes such as attention, perception, and memory. Two experiments were carried out to investigate whether anxiety and stereotypes of Middle Easterners influence attention and recognition memory in White participants. A dot‐probe procedure was used, with White and Middle Eastern faces as stimuli. The results showed that anxious participants who were exposed to terrorism‐related words showed a visual bias toward Middle Eastern faces, and were more accurate at recognizing both White and Middle Eastern faces. Non‐anxious participants, after exposure to the same primes, showed an attentional bias toward the White faces. Overall, participants were more accurate at recognizing the White faces than the Middle Eastern faces. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Enhancing the salience of free speech rights increases differential perceived free speech protections for criminal acts against Black versus White targets

Hate crime charges offer enhanced sentences for prejudice‐motivated acts in recognition of the injury that extends beyond the victim to other members of the targeted group. The present study builds upon and extends previous work illuminating how anti‐Black prejudice influences application of free speech protections to justify criminal acts against Black (vs. White) targets, which subsequently reduces support for hate crime charges for the act by investigating the potential effects of environmental cues that increase the salience of free speech rights. The present work tested the main and interactive effects of act target (Black vs. White), anti‐Black prejudice, and the salience of freedom of speech on perceived free speech protections for a prejudice‐motivated criminal act and the consequent influence on support for hate crime charges. Replicating previous findings, greater anti‐Black prejudice predicted more perceived free speech protections for Black‐targeted acts, which predicted less support for hate crime charges. Low‐bias participants viewed Black‐ versus White‐targeted acts as less protected by free speech rights and more deserving of hate crime charges; high‐bias participants viewed the two acts similarly. Making the right to free speech (compared to protections from search and seizure) salient amplified differential perceptions of free speech protections based on prejudice and target group, which predicted support for hate crime charges. This work holds implications for justification processes and highlights the importance of studying culture‐specific values.     

TARGET ARTICLE: Attributions of Implicit Prejudice,or "Would Jesse Jackson 'Fail' the Implicit Association Test?"

Measures of implicit prejudice are based on associations between race-related stimuli and valenced words. Reaction time (RT) data have been characterized as showing implicit prejudice when White names or faces are associated with positive concepts and African-American names or faces with negative concepts, compared to the reverse pairings. We offer three objections to the inferential leap from the comparative RT of different associations to the attribution of implicit prejudice: (a) The data may reflect shared cultural stereotypes rather than personal animus, (b) the affective negativity attributed to participants may be due to cognitions and emotions that are not necessarily prejudiced, and (c) the patterns of judgment deemed to be indicative of prejudice pass tests deemed to be diagnostic of rational behavior.     

Automatic stereotypes vs. automatic prejudice: Sorting out the possibilities in the weapon paradigm

Payne (2001) has documented that African-American faces automatically facilitate the categorization of handguns, relative to White faces. We suggest that these provocative results could derive from either the automatic activation of prejudice (negative evaluations) or the automatic activation of stereotypes (both positively and negatively valenced associations). In an extension of Payne’s procedure, we show that African-American faces facilitate the categorization of both handguns and sports-related objects, but not the categorization of insects or fruits. Additionally, both handguns and sports objects are more likely to be miscategorized following a White face prime than an African-American one. These results suggest that when perceivers are attempting to identify objects, automatic stereotypic associations, both positively and negatively valenced ones, are more influential than general negative sentiments towards African-Americans.     

Looking at others through implicitly or explicitly prejudiced eyes

It is well known that we utilize internalized representations (or schemas) to direct our eyes when exploring visual stimuli. Interestingly, our schemas for human faces are known to reflect systematic differences that are consistent with one's level of racial prejudice. However, whether one's level or type of racial prejudice can differentially regulate how we visually explore faces that are the target of prejudice is currently unknown. Here, White participants varying in their level of implicit or explicit prejudice viewed Black faces and White faces (with the latter serving as a control) while having their gaze behaviour recorded with an eye-tracker. The results show that, regardless of prejudice type (i.e., implicit or explicit), participants high in racial prejudice examine faces differently than those low in racial prejudice. Specifically, individuals high in explicit racial prejudice were more likely to fixate on the mouth region of Black faces when compared to individuals low in explicit prejudice, and exhibited less consistency in their scanning of faces irrespective of race. On the other hand, individuals high in implicit racial prejudice tended to focus on the region between the eyes, regardless of face race. It therefore seems that racial prejudice guides target-race specific patterns of looking behaviour, and may also contribute to general patterns of looking behaviour when visually exploring human faces.     

Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: The role of threat perception and cognitive control

Participants played a videogame in which they were required to make speeded shoot/don’t-shoot decisions in response to armed and unarmed targets, half of whom were Black, half of whom were White. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs), recorded during the game, assessed attentional processes related to target race and object type. Early ERP components (i.e., the P200 and N200) differentiated between Black and White targets, as well as between armed and unarmed targets. Explicitly measured cultural stereotypes predicted both this racial ERP differentiation and racial bias in the game. Most importantly, the degree of racial differentiation in the early ERP components predicted behavioral bias in the videogame and mediated the relationship between cultural stereotypes and bias.     

Subliminal exposure to faces and racial attitudes: Exposure to Whites makes Whites like Blacks less

Despite recent social and political advances, most interracial contact is still superficial in nature, and White individuals interact mainly with other Whites. Based on recent mere exposure research, we propose that repeated exposure to Whites may actually increase prejudice. In a series of experiments, White participants were subliminally exposed to White faces or nothing (control) and then completed various explicit and implicit measures of racial attitudes. Exposure to White faces consistently led to more prejudice by making attitudes toward Blacks more negative, rather than by making attitudes toward Whites more positive. A final experiment demonstrated that the pattern of increased prejudice following exposure to Whites was moderated by the strength of participants’ attitudes toward Whites. Only when White attitudes were strong did Black attitudes became more negative after exposure to White faces.     

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.     

“Unskilled” Workers: Social Skills Stereotypes Affect Evaluations of Biracial Job Applicants

Why do Black/White workers earn wages similar to Black workers ($6.30 less per hour than White workers), despite encountering less negative, anti-Black sentiment from others? We propose that Black/White workers must contend with stereotypes suggesting that biracial people are socially unskilled. In the present study we observed that, regardless of whether job candidates were rejected for external reasons (interviewer prejudice) or whether candidates acted in undesirable ways (claimed discrimination), participants rated Black/White applicants as less socially skilled and as more likely to have demonstrated poor interview skills than Black applicants. Implications for biases against hiring biracial people are discussed.     

Afraid of one afraid of all: When threat associations spread across face-types

Fear can be acquired for objects not inherently associated with threat (e.g. birds), and this threat may generalize from prototypical to peripheral category members (e.g. crows vs. penguins). When categorizing people, pervasive stereotypes link Black men to assumed violence and criminality. Faces with Afrocentric features (prototypical) are more often associated with threat and criminality than non-Afrocentric (peripheral) faces regardless of whether the individual is Black or White. In this study, using a priming paradigm, threat associations related to negative racial stereotypes were tested as a vehicle for spreading fear across face-type categories. Results showed more negative than positive judgments for White face targets but only when the prime was primarily non-Afrocentric (i.e. Eurocentric). Black face targets were judged more negatively than positively regardless of prime. This suggests some cognitive processes related to threat generalizations of objects extend to complex social categories.     

Look Black in anger: The role of implicit prejudice in the categorization and perceived emotional intensity of racially ambiguous faces

Research has demonstrated that individuals high in implicit prejudice are more likely to classify a racially ambiguous angry face as Black compared to individuals low in implicit prejudice [Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2004). Ambiguity in social categorization. Psychological Science, 15, 342-345]. The current study sought to replicate and extend this finding by examining whether the same expression of anger on a racially ambiguous face is perceived to be differentially intense when the face is judged to be Black or White. White participants viewed racially ambiguous, White, and Black faces displaying angry, neutral, or happy emotions. Participants’ task was to identify the race, emotion, and intensity of emotion display. The results revealed that participants high in implicit prejudice reported significantly more of the racially ambiguous angry faces as Black compared to participants low in implicit prejudice. Further, participants high in implicit prejudice reported the intensity of the racially ambiguous angry emotion as greater when the same face had been categorized as Black compared to White. The results suggest that implicit prejudice is not only associated with the racial categorization of an ambiguous face but also the perceived intensity of the emotion displayed.     

Reducing the own-race bias in face recognition by attentional shift using fixation crosses preceding the lower half of a face

Hills and Lewis (2006) reduced White participants’ own-race bias (ORB) in face recognition by training them to attend to features critical for Black faces (lower portion of the face). Here, the ORB was investigated following a brief fixation cross either in the upper portion of the face (critical for White faces) or the lower portion of the face. Results showed that when the cross preceded the lower portion of the face, Black faces were recognized more accurately than White faces and vice versa when it preceded the upper portion of the face. A second experiment demonstrated that this effect disappears if the participants are forced to delay their responses by 4 s. These results suggest that an immediate attentional mechanism can attenuate the ORB when immediate attention is paid to diagnostic features but this can be overridden with increased time spent viewing faces.     

Beyond the double-jeopardy hypothesis: Assessing emotion on the faces of multiply-categorizable targets of prejudice

Prior research has shown that race influences perceptions of facial expressions, with hostility detected earlier on young male Black than White faces. This study examined whether the interplay of race and age would moderate perceptions of hostility by having participants evaluate facial expressions of multiply-categorizable targets. Using a facial emotion change-detection task, we assessed evaluations of onset/offset of anger and happiness on faces of young and old Black and White men. Significant age by race interactions were observed: while participants perceived anger as lasting longer and appearing sooner on old compared to young White faces, this relationship was reversed for Black faces, with participants perceiving anger lasting longer and appearing sooner on young compared to old Black faces. Similar results were found for perceived happiness. These results suggest that perception during cross-categorization may be more complex than the simple additive function proposed by the double-jeopardy hypothesis, such that co-activation of other stereotypes may sometimes confer a protective benefit against bias.     

Not Only Whites: Racial Priming Effect for Black Faces in Black People

Black people are widely negatively stereotyped. The presence of unconscious stereotypes can be effectively assessed with the administration of “racial priming tasks.” An ethnically diverse group was subjected to a priming paradigm to test whether racial cues could bias the identification of target objects. Participants were asked to categorize objects (either as dangerous or nondangerous) after the presentation of Black/White faces as primes. Results show that both Black and White participants were faster in categorizing dangerous objects when primed with Black faces compared to the control condition (i.e., scrambled faces). One possible explanation for this effect is that Black faces are generally associated with a feeling of danger, which ultimately leads to faster responses.     

Explaining White Opposition to Black Political Leadership: The Role of Fear of Racial Favoritism

Despite the election of America's first Black president, most non‐Hispanic Whites continue to oppose Black political leadership. The conventional explanation for White opposition is sheer racial prejudice, yet the available empirical evidence for this theory is inconsistent. I test an alternative theory that Whites perceive Black political leaders as a threat to their group's interests. Using a new survey measure and nationally representative panel data covering the 2008, 2010, and 2012 U.S. elections, I find that a majority of Whites perceive Black elected officials as likely to favor Blacks over Whites. Moreover, fear of racial favoritism predicts support for Barack Obama in both cross‐sectional models and fixed‐effects models of within‐person change, controlling for negative racial stereotypes. I replicate these findings using a separate cross‐sectional survey fielded after the 2014 election that controls for racial resentment. Collectively, these results suggest that perceptions of conflicting group interests—and not just prejudice—drive White opposition to Black political leadership.