Looking the part (to me): effects of racial prototypicality on race perception vary by prejudice

Abstract

Less racially prototypic faces elicit more category competition during race categorization. Top-down factors (e.g. stereotypes), however, affect categorizations, suggesting racial prototypicality may enhance category competition in certain perceivers. Here, we examined how prejudice affects race category competition and stabilization when perceiving faces varying in racial prototypicality. Prototypically low vs high Black relative to White faces elicited more category competition and slower response latencies during categorization (Experiment 1), suggesting a pronounced racial prototypicality effect on minority race categorization. However, prejudice predicted the extent of category competition between prototypically low vs high Black faces. Suggesting more response conflict toward less prototypic Black vs White faces, anterior cingulate cortex activity increased toward Black vs White faces as they decreased in racial prototypicality, with prejudice positively predicting this difference (Experiment 2). These findings extend the literature on racial prototypicality and categorization by showing that relative prejudice tempers the extent of category competition and response conflict engaged when initially perceiving faces.

Predictably confirmatory: The influence of stereotypes during decisional processing

“…Work has revealed that darker skinned Blacks and those displaying stronger Afrocentric features are perceived, evaluated, and treated more negatively than their lighter skinned and less facially prototypical counterparts (e.g., Blair, Chapleau, & Judd, 2005;Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004;Dixon & Maddox, 2005;Hagiwara, Kashy, & Cesario, 2012;Livingston & Brewer, 2002). That is, person evaluation is sensitive to the facial appearance of group members (Cassidy, Sprout, Freeman, & Krendl, 2017;Freeman & Ambady, 2009;Pauker & Ambady, 2009;Walker & Wänke, 2017), such that exemplar typicality moderates the strength of stereotype activation (Locke, Macrae, & Eaton, 2005).…”

“…). That is, person evaluation is sensitive to the facial appearance of group members (Cassidy, Sprout, Freeman, & Krendl, 2017; Freeman & Ambady, 2009; Pauker & Ambady, 2009; Walker & Wänke, 2017), such that exemplar typicality moderates the strength of stereotype activation (Locke, Macrae, & Eaton, 2005).…”

Comparing person and people perception: Multiple group members do not increase stereotype priming

“…Based on the observation that stereotype activation commonly follows the perception of a single individual ( Bargh, 1999 ; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990 ; Freeman & Ambady, 2011 ; Kawakami et al, 2017 ; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000 ), an intuitive hypothesis arises—group perception may amplify stereotype-based responding. Specifically, if solitary persons prompt stereotype activation, this effect may be bolstered when multiple triggering stimuli are encountered simultaneously (i.e., cue intensity amplifies stereotype activation; Blair et al, 2005 ; Cassidy et al, 2017 ; Dixon & Maddox, 2005 ; Freeman & Ambady, 2009 ; Locke et al, 2005 ; Macrae et al, 2002 ; Pauker & Ambady, 2009 ). Two independent lines of inquiry suggest such a possibility.…”

“…intuitive hypothesis arises-group perception may amplify stereotype-based responding. Specifically, if solitary persons prompt stereotype activation, this effect may be bolstered when multiple triggering stimuli are encountered simultaneously (i.e., cue intensity amplifies stereotype activation; Blair et al, 2005;Cassidy et al, 2017;Dixon & Maddox, 2005;Freeman & Ambady, 2009;Locke et al, 2005;Macrae et al, 2002;Pauker & Ambady, 2009). Two independent lines of inquiry suggest such a possibility.…”

Mouse-tracking reveals cognitive conflict during negative impression formation in women with Borderline Personality Disorder or Social Anxiety Disorder

“…It is believed that the hand PLOS ONE movements in mouse-tracking paradigms reflect neurological processes underlying the decision process [for an overview, see 30], for instance the preparation of multiple motor plans in the motor cortex [32]. The degree of cognitive conflict captured via mouse-movements has been associated with the level of anterior cingulate cortex activity [33], a brain region that is central to conflict detection and resolution [34,35]. Mouse-tracking as a process tracing method was initially introduced in the area of language processing [36], but has since spread across a broad range of psychological fields [for recent reviews, see 37,38].…”