By Dr. Lou Cozolino
Hello! My name is Mary Meador and I am part of the Education Team at GAINS. The events of the last few months, sparked by the death of George Floyd, but rooted in thousands of examples of gross racial and social injustice, have broken me open. I am one of those white people who felt “color blind” and who would have said I was not racist. But now I know how ignorant I have been and from here on out, I want to step forward to listen, to try to understand, to work together and actively participate in dismantling the inequities that are embedded in our society.
We feel so fortunate to be able to dialogue with Dr. Lou Cozolino, our esteemed Advisory Board member and pioneer in the field of interpersonal neurobiology, in our next Living Journal webinar, September 9, 2020 at 1:00 pm PDT. We will discuss evidence that the origins of racial prejudice may be related to the rapid and unconscious activation of primitive fear circuitry. Here are two articles we will be talking about:
- Neural Signals for the Detection of Unintentional Race Bias, by David M. Amodio, et al. Psychological Science; 2004, Volume 15, number 2: 88-93.
- Performance on Indirect Measures of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation, by Elizabeth A. Phelps, et al. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience; 2000, 12(5): 729-738.
We encourage you to read the articles and participate in our discussion during the webinar.
Following, Dr. Cozolino writes some of his thoughts on the neurobiology of implicit bias, and the challenges of discerning genetic hard wiring from experience in culture. He concludes that we can actively work against the corrosive effects of racial prejudice by supporting cultural pride, self- esteem, and increasing integration and contact between the races. The references listed in this piece will be cited below:
Human history is plagued with examples of prejudice, racism, and genocides. In fact, the ubiquity of prejudice and racism seems to suggest that we are hard-wired to dislike, distrust, and even hate those who are different from us. The fact that conflicts and slaughter based on race, tribal affiliations, and religion continue unabated in the “modern” world only seems to strengthen the argument for prejudice as a basic component of human nature. Standing in stark contrast to this view are countless examples of harmony, cooperation, and acts of altruism that seem to contradict racism as a basic human truth. Because prejudice and racism are issues fraught with so much emotion, looking at them through the lens of science may offer some clues to their origins and potential cures.
Imagining the lives of our tribal ancestors, it is easy to see the survival benefit of developing a fast and reflexive system for rapid classification of unfamiliar others. Having our fear and vigilance circuitry reflexively activated by unfamiliar others would help us to avoid exposure to new diseases and direct physical harm through preemptive avoidance or attack (Schaller et al., 2003).
If these ideas about natural selection were to be tested, it would make sense that the social neuroscience of racial prejudice would be related to the rapid and unconscious activation of our primitive fear circuitry. It would then follow that these primitive reactions would lead us to distortions of sensory perceptions and social judgments that parallel those seen in social phobia. These distorted attitudes and perceptions would then become woven into culture, guiding everything from interpersonal behavior, to public policy, to international relations. Therefore, the most relevant questions facing us in this area of study are how do our brains process social information and how do we counteract those that are incorrect and harmful to others?
The inextricable connection between genetic hard wiring and experience in culture makes exploring these questions quite complicated. For example, research with African-American children in the 1940’s showed that they would choose white dolls over brown ones, describing the brown dolls as “ugly,” “not pretty,” or labeled them with racial epithets. White dolls were described as “good,” “pretty,” and “the best looking because they’re white” (Clark & Clark, 1950). Although it is difficult to sort out the relative influence of genes and culture, in this case, it is difficult to imagine that culture didn’t play the primary role in their descriptions.
Inculcated prejudice stretches from young girls to adult scientists. The hesitancy that many have to apply science to race is grounded in the enormous risk of unconscious prejudice masquerading as science. The usual result is that differences among cultures are interpreted on a good/bad dimension instead of the effects of experience and natural selection. “Scientific” research, published with titles such as Some Racial Peculiarities of the Negro Brain (Bean, 1906) from the anatomy laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, make it easy to recognize the thin line between science and prejudice.
Given that our self-concept is infused with our place in the family, neighborhood, and the general culture, prejudice becomes woven both into our brains and our developing sense of self. Racial disadvantages within society appear to accrue over a number of generations resulting in compounding psychological, social, and biological effects (Geronimus, 1992; Mays et al., 2007).
In an attempt to identify the neural substrate of prejudice, a number of studies have examined brain activation during exposure to pictures of same/other group faces. Because these studies have been performed at American universities where our most salient racial conflicts have occurred between African- and Caucasian-Americans, the studies reviewed here primarily focus on these two populations.
It turns out that the old statement “they all look alike,” where “they” are another racial group, may reflect an underlying truth of how our brains process same and other race faces. General results support a clear advantage in recognizing faces, distinguishing among faces, and in brain activation for same-race faces (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978; Golby et al., 2001; Hayward et al., 2008; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969; Walker & Tanaka, 2003). Interestingly, the difference in recognizing African American faces by Caucasians disappears when African Americans have angry expressions, possibly due to heightened amygdala activity in the “face” of potential danger (Ackerman et al., 2006).
Neural processing for the recognition of other race faces results in longer periods of frontal activation, suggesting that they are processed less automatically and with greater effort (Herzmann et al., 2011). Supporting this idea is that fact that interracial interactions have been shown to impair executive functions; the extra frontal lobe activation required may divert neural processing away from other frontal functions (Richeson et al., 2003; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005). Consistent with these findings are those that show that stereotypes are automatically activated and require conscious inhibition to produce low-prejudice responses (Amodio et al., 2004; 2006; Devine, 1989). The overall result of these processing differences may lead us to think about individuals of other races in less complicated and more stereotyped ways (Linville & Jones, 1980).
Assuming that fear is at the heart of prejudice, a second line of research directly explored amygdala activation in same vs. other race situations. It was found that when Caucasians and African-Americans are shown pictures of other-race faces, they exhibit more amygdala activation and an enhanced startle response compared to same-race faces (Hart et al., 2000; Krill & Platek, 2009; Phelps et al., 2000). Although it takes approximately 500ms for a visual stimulus to reach conscious awareness, information about race is coded in just 50ms (Ito & Urland, 2003; Ito et al., 2004). Racial bias in face perception has been detected in the earliest stages of visual processing, well before conscious perceptions of who is being seen (Ofan et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2008). The rapidity of this “race response” results in the automatic and instantaneous frontloading of all of our past biases into the experience of each new person.
Activation of a rapid and unconscious fear response influences our conscious experience in many ways. For example, individuals from other groups are more readily associated with aversive stimuli. This is the likely reason why African Americans are more readily misperceived as carrying weapons and black faces are more likely to be perceived as angry by white subjects (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Olsson et al., 2005; Payne, 2001). Interestingly, both African-Americans and Caucasians have greater amygdala activation to African-American faces, which may be due to the consistent pairing of African-American faces with criminal behavior in the media (Gilens, 1996; Lieberman et al., 2005). This conditioning may not have as extreme an impact on African-American viewers because of their greater exposure to other African-American faces. African-Americans are also better at recognizing Caucasian faces than vice-versa for this same reason (Golby et al., 2001).
Thus, while our responses to people of other races are guided by bottom-up amygdala activation, they are also modulated by a variety of top-down cognitive and social factors (Blair, 2002; Lowery et al., 2001; Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). For example, other race speakers are seen as more forceful, powerful, and intimidating than a same-race speaker (Hart & Morry, 1996; 1997; Hass et al., 1991; Linville & Jones, 1980) and increased implicit prejudice is related to increased sensitivity to facial expression (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004).
So back to the issue of whether prejudice is learned or innate. To explore this question, instead of showing unknown faces, faces of well-known and well-liked African-Americans were shown to Caucasian subjects (Phelps et al., 2000). In these subjects, amygdala activation was absent suggesting that exposure and positive experiences of a person of a different race can counteract the effects of general cultural prejudice. While the interpretation of these results has been contested (Dasgupta et al., 2000), it does make intuitive sense that positive exposure is capable of inhibiting the activation of fear circuitry. The use of exposure paired with relaxation also happens to be the core of treatment for Phobias, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and other disorders that involve heightened amygdala activation and anxiety.
Like the social phobic, we may all employ avoidance strategies to modulate our anxiety with those of other races. So it may be that segregation and prejudicial labeling of others decreases our anxiety and creates the illusion of mastery and control. The lessons of history appear to support this interpretation. Segregation seems to perpetuate and enhance prejudice by keeping our brains from learning about one another, leaving us to analyze the faces of people from other races with less efficient neural circuitry, and making us more vulnerable to negative stereotypes and having our social judgments hijacked by our amygdala.
Once stereotypical attitudes and beliefs are inculcated, change requires “intention, attention, and time” (Phelps & Thomas, 2003). Because most children are exposed to some degree of racial prejudice, open discussion and increased interracial exposure work against prejudice turning into conscious beliefs and negative behaviors. Increased focus and awareness of the handicapped has also found to decrease discrimination in the same way (Langer et al., 1985). We know from studies of anxiety and fear that conscious labeling activates cortical neural networks that can regulate and inhibit emotional activity. Verbal encoding of African-American targets results in less amygdala activation in Caucasians, reflecting the ability of conscious processing to inhibit fear (Lieberman et al., 2005).
Conscious processing is directly involved with the inhibition and control of automatic implicit processing. So when the same race faces are presented for 500ms, or the time it takes to be consciously aware of what is being presented, amygdala activation is reduced while frontal activation increases (Cunningham et al., 2004). In other words, people with low levels of stereotyping have learned to inhibit their automatic responses and replace them with thoughts more reflective of equality. Via conscious effort, positive experiences, or consistent exposure, they have created an important break between reflexive prejudice and conscious thoughts and behaviors (Devine, 1989).
For African Americans, real and suspected racial prejudice may consistently reinforce the brain to remain vigilant and suspicious of Caucasians. This may be why African Americans reported that they prefer to interact with Caucasians who exhibit more racial bias than those who make an effort to appear unbiased (Shelton et al., 2005). Honest communication may actually be the best route to working through and getting past prejudice.
Self-perception of academic abilities combined with positive racial identity was found to correlate with school achievement despite the awareness of discrimination (Taylor et al., 1994). So, while the racist’s practices and beliefs remain a current reality, we can actively work against their corrosive effects by supporting cultural pride, self- esteem, and increasing integration and contact between the races. Issues of race also have the potential of stimulating the kind of self-awareness and perspective that could enhance and promote the development of wisdom.
People from other cultures, with different degrees of exposure, proximity, and prejudice need to be studied before we can arrive at any conclusions about the origins of racial prejudice. With the science of genetics revealing that the notion of race is far more a cultural construct than a biological reality, future study of how our brains react to one another can only help to shed light not just on the nature and etiology of the neuroscience of prejudice, but on how all of us who live on this increasingly crowded planet may learn to overcome our differences and discover the true wealth of human diversity.
Ackerman JM, Shapiro JR, Neuberg SL, et al. They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry): from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(10):836-840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01790.x
Amodio DM, Harmon-Jones E, Devine PG, Curtin JJ, Hartley SL, Covert AE. Neural signals for the detection of unintentional race bias. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(2):88-93. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502003.x
Amodio DM, Kubota JT, Harmon-Jones E, Devine PG. Alternative mechanisms for regulating racial responses according to internal vs external cues. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006;1(1):26-36. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl002
Bean, R. B. (1906). Some racial peculiarities of the negro brain. American Journal of Anatomy, 5, 353-432.
Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242-261.
Brigham, J. C., & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do “they all look alike?” The effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306-318.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preference in negro children. Journal of egro Education, 19, 341-350.
Cunningham WA, Johnson MK, Raye CL, Chris Gatenby J, Gore JC, Banaji MR. Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(12):806-813. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00760.x
Dasgupta, N., McGhee, D. E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R., (2000). Automatic preference for white Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 316-328.
Devine, P. G., (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Geronimus AT. The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: evidence and speculations. Ethn Dis. 1992;2(3):207-221.
Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperception and the American news media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 515-541.
Golby AJ, Gabrieli JD, Chiao JY, Eberhardt JL. Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4(8):845-850. doi:10.1038/90565
Hart AJ, Whalen PJ, Shin LM, McInerney SC, Fischer H, Rauch SL. Differential response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport. 2000;11(11):2351-2355. doi:10.1097/00001756-200008030-00004
Hart, A. J., & Morry, M. M., (1996). Nonverbal behavior, race, and attitude attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 165-179.
Hart, A. J., & Morry, M. M., (1997). Trait inferences based on racial and behavioral cues. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 3-48.
Hass R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Eisenstadt, D. (1991). Cross racial appraisal as related to attitude ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 83-92.
Hayward WG, Rhodes G, Schwaninger A. An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition. Cognition. 2008;106(2):1017-1027. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.002
Herzmann G, Willenbockel V, Tanaka JW, Curran T. The neural correlates of memory encoding and recognition for own-race and other-race faces. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(11):3103-3115. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.07.019
Hugenberg K, Bodenhausen GV. Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychol Sci. 2003;14(6):640-643. doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x
Hugenberg K, Bodenhausen GV. Ambiguity in social categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(5):342-345. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00680.x
Ito TA, Urland GR. Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):616-626. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1246
Ito TA, Thompson E, Cacioppo JT. Tracking the time course of social perception: the effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30(10):1267-1280. doi:10.1177/0146167204264335
Krill A, Platek SM. In-group and out-group membership mediates anterior cingulate activation to social exclusion. Front Evol Neurosci. 2009;1:1. Published 2009 Apr 13. doi:10.3389/neuro.18.001.2009
Langer EJ, Bashner RS, Chanowitz B. Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49(1):113-120. doi:10.1037//0022-35126.96.36.199
Lieberman MD, Hariri A, Jarcho JM, Eisenberger NI, Bookheimer SY. An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-American individuals. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(6):720-722. doi:10.1038/nn1465
Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
Lowery BS, Hardin CD, Sinclair S. Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(5):842-855. doi:10.1037//0022-35188.8.131.522
Malpass RS, Kravitz J. Recognition for faces of own and other race. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1969;13(4):330-334. doi:10.1037/h0028434
Mays VM, Cochran SD, Barnes NW. Race, race-based discrimination, and health outcomes among African Americans. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:201-225. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190212
Ofan RH, Rubin N, Amodio DM. Seeing race: N170 responses to race and their relation to automatic racial attitudes and controlled processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23(10):3153-3161. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00014
Olsson A, Ebert JP, Banaji MR, Phelps EA. The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science. 2005;309(5735):785-787. doi:10.1126/science.1113551
Payne BK. Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(2):181-192. doi:10.1037//0022-35184.108.40.206
Phelps EA, O’Connor KJ, Cunningham WA, et al. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12(5):729-738. doi:10.1162/089892900562552
Phelps, E. A., & Thomas, L. A. (2003). Race, behavior, and the brain: The role of neuroimaging in understanding complex social behaviours. Political Psychology, 24, 747-758.
Richeson JA, Baird AA, Gordon HL, et al. An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nat Neurosci. 2003;6(12):1323-1328. doi:10.1038/nn1156
Richeson JA, Trawalter S. On the categorization of admired and disliked exemplars of admired and disliked racial groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;89(4):517-530. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.117
Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & faulkner, J. (2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 105-137.
Shelton JN, Richeson JA, Salvatore J, Trawalter S. Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. Psychol Sci. 2005;16(5):397-402. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01547.x
Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., Flickinger, S. M., Roberts, D., & Fulmore, C. D. (1994). Explaining the school performance of African-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(1), 21-44.
Walker, P. M., Sivert, L., Hewstone, M., & Nobre, A. C. (2008). Social contact and other-race face processing in the human brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 16-25
Walker PM, Tanaka JW. An encoding advantage for own-race versus other-race faces. Perception. 2003;32(9):1117-1125. doi:10.1068/p5098
Wheeler ME, Fiske ST. Controlling racial prejudice: social-cognitive goals affect amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychol Sci. 2005;16(1):56-63. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00780.x