by: Patricia Cartwright
The essential question we wish to answer here is whether prejudice is inevitable. The following blog will present social psychology research and social neuroscience research to demonstrate that although implicit bias is inexorable, humans can make conscious efforts to inhibit their negative automatic biases.
Categorization
With the increasing demands of social interaction and larger social networks came the evolution of the neocortex and the development of the brain’s ability to make distinctions between social groups (see more on the social brain hypothesis here). This evolutionary behavioral proclivity can be seen as a survival instinct, as it helps us figure out who to trust and with whom to share resources. The beginning of prejudice can be traced back to our ability to categorize, which is an inevitable, automatic, often unconscious process (Bruner, 1977). Although many people may believe they are “colorblind,” social neuroscience reveals that this belief is likely a fallacy. In a matter of milliseconds, humans are able to identify another’s race, familiarity, age, etc. Furthermore, within our first year of life, our level of exposure to social groups begin to develop our behavioral and neural sensitivity to race and other social groups. While, alone, the proclivity to categorize others may not lead to prejudice, the reinforcement of these negative biases can lead to prejudice if not countered (Telzer et al. 2013; Vogel et al. 2016).
The Role of Environment
When we are exposed to exclusively uniformed groups (e.g., uniform by race, culture, etc.), we begin to develop implicit biases toward others that are not members of our own family or close group of friends (Telzer et al. 2013). This is a phenomenon known as in-group bias. In-group bias describes the intrinsic human tendency to favor one’s own social group over others. The further someone is from our inner circle, the more we have a tendency to form some type of prejudice against them. Thus, instead of having a harmonious and interactive community, social categorization divides the world into “Us vs. Them” (Bruner, 1977).
Defining Prejudice
Within seconds of seeing a picture of a homeless man, we may experience negative affective reactions such as avoidance. This negative implicit bias is adaptive in some situations, such as when the homeless person appears to have erratic behavior. Prejudice is the overall, and usually negative, attitude one holds toward a collective group. Prejudice becomes more negative than helpful when people derogate and blame outgroups for their problems (i.e., scapegoat theory) to increase their self-esteem and feelings of in-group superiority (Marcus-Newhall, Carlson, & Miller, 2000). This hostility, often times, can lead to discrimination and dehumanization that abets genocide (see here for an example of genocide) and radical attempts to exterminate outgroups members. So what does neuroscience reveal about bias?
Neuroscience of Bias
Krendl, Kensinger, & Ambady (2012) revealed that similar prefrontal neural regions and the amygdala are activated when the brain makes automatic evaluations of stigmatized targets (i.e., socially disgraced individuals). However, although categorization is the precursor for bias, it also lays the groundwork for bias inhibition (Amodio, 2010). In one study, highly prejudiced people demonstrated more amygdala response when they were shown an other-race face. Repeated exposure to these other-race faces, however, significantly reduced amygdala activation over time. Instead of amygdala responses, these individuals showed an increase in brain activity in the brain areas associated with bias inhibition and self-control. Thus, these results suggest that our prejudices can be inhibited with conscious effort and prolonged exposure (Amodio, 2010).
Neural Pathway Differences
As mentioned earlier, prejudices can be inhibited with considerable effort and repeated exposure to other racial groups and allow for egalitarianism. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dPFC) has been suggested to play a central role in controlling prejudice thoughts. For instance, Amodio et al. (2008) found that the dPFC shows more activation among individuals who have positive attitudes toward other-race groups such as African-Americans. In contrast, the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain region involved in identifying situations where regulation and control are needed, can be activated for those who are not motivated to inhibit their prejudices thereby increasing their negative implicit bias. In sum, work by Amodio et al. (2008) and Krendlr, Kensinger, & Ambady (2012) demonstrate that the colorblind ideology (more on the colorblind ideology here) is a fallacy, as implicit bias is hardwired into the human brain.
Conclusion
Despite research that suggests humans are equipped with the evolutionary proclivity to have automatic biases about others, the neuroscience research presented earlier also suggests people can counter prejudice through conscious effort, environmental reinforcement, repeated exposure and positive interactions with outgroup members. Efforts to reduce prejudice should begin in early infancy and emphasize that group differences are not inherently bad. For instance, this can be achieved through promoting contact between groups, actively looking for the other person’s unique positive qualities and working on inhibiting implicit biases of out-group members and stigmatized individuals. Future efforts for prejudice reduction should include the following characteristics: equal status among all members, a cooperative environment, superordinate goals, the support of authorities, laws or customs, relatively high levels of intimacy, opportunities for friendship formation, and contact with a variety of group members across different situations.
References/Additional Resources:
- Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 60-74.
- Amodio, D. M. (2010). Coordinated roles of motivation and perception in the regulation of intergroup responses: Frontal cortical asymmetry effects on the P2 event-related potential and behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2609-2617.
- Bruner, J. S. (1977). "Early social interaction and language acquisition". In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in Mother-infant Interaction (pp. 271–289). London: Academic Press.
- Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540-551.
- Krendl, A. C., Kensinger, E. A., & Ambady, N. (2012). How does the brain regulate negative bias to stigma? SCAN, 7, 715-726.
- Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M. & Miller, N., (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670-689.
- Telzer et al. (2013). Early experience shapes amygdala sensitivity to race: An international adoption design. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 13484-13488.
- Vogel, M., Monesson, A., & Scott, L. S. (2012). Building biases in infancy: The influence of race on face and voice emotion matching, Developmental Science, 15, 359-372.