150 likes | 303 Views
Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups. Lasana T. Harris and Susan T. Fiske Princeton University, 2006. Introduction - Prejudice. Allport (1954), father of prejudice research Antipathy based on a perceived social category
E N D
Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low:Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups Lasana T. Harris and Susan T. Fiske Princeton University, 2006
Introduction - Prejudice Allport (1954), father of prejudice research • Antipathy based on a perceived social category Not as “black and white” as like/dislike – different types of prejudice Extreme forms of prejudice may deny their targets full humanity
Stereotype Content Model (SCM) • Predicts differentiated prejudices • Friend-foe judgment (warmth) • Capability judgment (competence) • Societal groups: • intend either help or harm, are either capable or incapable of enacting these intentions
Stereotype Content Model (SCM) • 4 combinations of the dimensions 4 emotions towards social groups • Pride • Envy • Pity • Disgust • Not all groups provoke animosity • Competent + warm = middle-class, pride and admiration • Competent + not warm = rich people, envy and jealousy • Warm + incompetent = elderly people, pity and sympathy
Stereotype Content Model (SCM) Low warmth + low competence = most extreme out-groups, disgust and contempt • Based on perceived moral violations and subsequent negative outcomes these groups allegedly cause themselves • Dislike and disrespect • Extreme discrimination: • Excluding out-groups from full humanity
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC) • fMRI data: • mPFC differentially activated in social compared to nonsocial cognition • especially when required to make social judgments about people “Social groups falling into the low-warmth/low-competence quadrant of the SCM might not significantly activate the mPFC”
Participants • 22 Princeton University undergraduates, for course credit • Right-handed • Reported no abnormal neurological condition, head trauma, brain lesions • Normal or corrected vision • Mean age across the two studies: 19.5 years • 12 participants were women • 6 were ethnic minorities
Method • Participants shown images of • Different social groups (Study 1, 10 subjects) • Different objects (Study 2, 12 subjects) • Assessed each picture • which of the four SCM emotions best described how the image made them feel • Once inside the scanner, once outside • Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal changes recorded
The Images Study 1 • 48 colour photographs of eight different social groups Study 2 • Eight images of objects, each shown three times each Each study had six filler neutral images Each picture depicted one of the four SCM quadrants • 254 undergraduate students had pretested 80 images: • “How much of the following emotions does this picture make you feel?” on a 5-point scale • ANOVA, t-tests – only pictures with reliable effects selected
Results – Study 1 Support for the dehumanization hypothesis • Participants identified the predicted emotions for the pictures of the social groups • Outside scanner: low-low rated higher on disgust
Results – Study 1 • Significant mPFC activity for pride, envy, pity • No activity above significant threshold for disgust
Results – Study 1 • Did find that there was activation in the left insula and the right amygdala • Insula – disgust • Amygdala - fear
Results – Study 2 • No mPFC activity above baseline for disgust-inducing objects • Small yet significant mPFC activation for objects inducing envy • Pride, envy, pity: social emotions felt during presence (implied or actual) of a person • Participants reported envy towards an object only if the presence of a person was implied (stack of money)
Discussion • Used to investigate and reduce “hate crimes, prisoner abuse” • Clear to read • Focus on previous research and the introduction • Almost no discussion • Specific examples of extreme out-groups • What eight social groups shown – which ones elicited disgust • Significance of testing inside and outside the scanner
Discussion • Rating of photos to standardize • Done by Princeton students as well: more likely to have similar opinions as their peers – no random sampling for study or standardization • Objects induced people’s emotions when they weren’t meant to • In study 2, the pictures were repeated three times, to be consistent: have 48 pictures as well • Amygdala and insula mentioned only in passing – study that further to see if combined that is what they imply or if its only when they are separate • Aspects that make people feel this way – living conditions, inability to relate • What manipulations/changes could make people not feel this way