Non-Threatening Other-Race Faces Capture Visual Attention: Evidence from a Dot-Probe Task

Abstract

Visual attentional biases towards other-race faces have been attributed to the perceived threat value of such faces. It is possible, however, that they reflect the relative visual novelty of other-race faces. Here we demonstrate an attentional bias to other-race faces in the absence of perceived threat. White participants rated female East Asian faces as no more threatening than female own-race faces. Nevertheless, using a new dot-probe paradigm that can distinguish attentional capture and hold effects, we found that these other-race faces selectively captured visual attention. Importantly, this demonstration challenges previous interpretations of attentional biases to other-race faces as threat responses. Future studies will need to determine whether perceived threat increases attentional biases to other-race faces, beyond the levels seen here.

Close contact with racial outgroup members moderates attentional allocation towards outgroup versus ingroup faces

“…These findings are in line with Study 1 as well as previous research suggesting that contact with outgroup members must be of high quality and over a long period of time to be effective (Cook & Selltiz, 1955;Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Second, these findings extend previous work showing that White perceivers allocated more attention to outgroup Asian faces than ingroup White faces (Al-Janabi et al, 2012). Although White perceivers in the current study did not show an overall bias to Asian versus White faces, the current findings suggest that this relationship can be moderated by close outgroup contact.…”

Beyond stereotypes: The complexity of attention to racial out‐group faces

“…Using a variety of paradigms (see Figure ), existing literature demonstrates that out‐group faces, on average, do engage attention more than in‐group faces. Though most research examines White participants' attentional bias to Black faces (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, ; Ito & Urland, ; Trawalter, Todd, Baird, & Richeson, ), some studies find evidence of attentional bias to Latino (Guillermo & Correll, ), East Asian (Al Janabi, MacLeod, & Rhodes, ), and South Asian faces (Lovén et al, ). Researchers propose several primary mechanisms that may underlie this process, such as threat stereotypes (Donders, Correll, & Wittenbrink, ), racial attitudes (Richeson & Trawalter, ), familiarity with racial out‐groups (Al‐Janabi et al, ; Dickter, Gagnon, Gyurovski, & Brewington, ), and task goals (Correll et al, ).…”

“…Since most of this research is employed in a Black–White paradigm, many of these studies suggest, directly or indirectly, that threat stereotypes drive attention (Donders et al, ; Eberhardt et al, ; Trawalter et al, ). Research examining attention to a non‐Black racial group argues that threat is not necessary to prompt racial attentional bias and, instead, novelty can underlie this bias (Al‐Janabi et al, ). Threat and novelty are both plausible mechanisms and are consistent with the association‐based value factor of SAVI.…”

“…Low‐level features are probably not the sole mechanism driving racial attentional bias, because there is certainly evidence that factors, like external motivation to control prejudice, impact this bias (Richeson & Trawalter, ). In addition, some studies utilize gray‐scaled, luminance controlled stimuli (Al‐Janabi et al, ; Ito & Urland, ; Levin, ), or present color images against a gray background (Trawalter et al, ; see also Lovén et al, ), and find evidence of attentional bias to the out‐group, even in the absence of potential visual confounds. We simply note that a considerable proportion of research on attention to race introduces a visual confound by presenting color stimuli against a white computer screen.…”

“…One study finds attentional bias to both Latino and Black faces (Guillermo & Correll, ), though this work cannot directly address whether threat, novelty, or both served as mechanisms underlying this effect. In addition, while one study controls for threat in order to test the role of novelty (Al‐Janabi et al, ), we are unfamiliar with research that controls for novelty in order to examine threat. Despite this limitation, existing research does offer some evidence that attention is sensitive, if not specific, to threat.…”