View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
From De-humanization
and Objectification,
to Rehumanization
From Animosity to Empathy:
Neuro-Imaging Studies on the Building Blocks of Fairness
Susan T. Fiske Princeton University
USA
Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007;
Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
Low Warmth
Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007;
Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
Pure favoritism
Low Warmth Pure antipathy
Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al.,
JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
Ambivalence
Pure favoritism
Low Warmth
Pure antipathy Ambivalence
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
poor, welfare, homeless
Disgust
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
older, disabled, retarded
Pity
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
poor, welfare, homeless
Disgust
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
older, disabled, retarded
Pity
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
poor, welfare, homeless
Disgust
Jews, Asians, rich, feminists, vamps
Envy
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
older, disabled, retarded
Pity
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
poor, welfare, homeless
Disgust
Jews, Asians, rich, feminists, vamps
Envy
SCM: US Representative Sample (Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Competence
Wa
rmth
Americans
Elderly
Disabled
Christians
British
Black
professionals
Arabs
Asians
Rich
Poor blacks
Middle-class
Jews
Irish
Housewives
Homeless
Feminists
Retarded
Whites
Welfare
Turks
PITY
DISGUST
PRIDE
ENVY
SCM: US Representative Sample (Cuddy,
Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Competence
Wa
rmth
Americans
Elderly
Disabled
Christians
British
Black
professionals
Arabs
Asians
Rich
Poor blacks
Middle-class
Jews
Irish
Housewives
Homeless
Feminists
Retarded
Whites
Welfare
Turks
PITY
DISGUST
PRIDE
ENVY
Participants & Design (Harris & Fiske, 2006)
Participants: • 10 students (6 women, Mage = 19.5)
Independent variables: • 2 (warmth) X 2 (competence)
Images controlled for 12 irrelevant dimensions
Dependent variable: • Functional scans
• Emotion ratings
+
+
Pride Envy Pity Disgust
1 2 3 4
Emotion Ratings in Scanner (Harris & Fiske, Psych Science, 2006)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
pride envy pity disgust
Emotion
Pro
po
rtio
n
SCAN 101
• Medial Prefrontal Cortex
– Social cognition, theory of mind, social affect
• Dispositional attributions about people (Harris, Todorov, & Fiske, NeuroImage, 2006)
– Not ambiguous attributions
– Not objects doing same actions
(Harris & Fiske, Social Cognition, 2008)
• “Social valuation area”
Pride
Y: 55
Envy
Y: 14
Pity
Y: -19
MPFC: Social Cognition
Y: 62
Y: 52
Y: 42
Y: 32
Disgust: No MPFC, not Social
Dehumanization: Denying a Mind to Others
Prejudices MPFC activation
Attributed mind
Likely
interaction
Pride .47 .78 .27
Envy .57 .66 .14
Pity .52 .35 -.24
Disgust .34 .26 -.43
Disgusting groups also less articulate, intelligent, less typically human
(Harris & Fiske, 2006, under review)
Other Kinds of Dehumanization?
Dehumanization Theory (Haslam):
• Dehumanization as disgusting animals (e.g., vermin such as rodents, insects)
• Dehumanization as objects
(e.g., tools, machines, robots)
Stereotype Content Model
Low Competence High Competence
High Warmth
older, disabled, retarded
Pity
ingroup, allies, reference groups
Pride
Low Warmth
poor, welfare, homeless
Disgust
(Vermin)
Jews, Asians, rich, feminists, vamps
Envy
(Objects)
Female Subtypes (Eckes, 2002)
Female Subtypes (Eckes, 2002)
Participants & Design (Cikara & Fiske, under review)
Participants: • 19 heterosexual male students (Mage = 20.8)
Independent variables: • 2 (bikini/clothed) X 2 (female/male target)
Dependent variables: • Functional scans
• Face and body recognition (signal detection)
• Also measured Ambivalent Sexism – Hostile sexism (against nontraditional women)
Sample Stimuli
20 each, 10 foils
Stimulus Controls
• Facial attractiveness
• Body position
• Gaze
• Size standardization
• Background
• Detail in clothing
• Images were randomized in scanner
and recognition task
fMRI Design At the beginning of each run…
6000 /10000 ms
200 ms;
see person?
1800 ms
6000 / 10000 ms
Face Recall
Body Recall
Hostile Sexism Correlates with
mPFC
BA 10
48 voxels
Male Female
Control .23 -.32
Bikini .35 -.59**
p = .008 **
Disclaimer & Hope
• What I said:
– Differentiated prejudicesdistinct activations
• What I did NOT say:
– Prejudice is inevitable, wired in
• From dehumanization to empathy:
– Neural activation depends on social context
Re-humanization Hypotheses (Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)
• Baseline, nonsocial goal no MPFC
• Categorization goal MPFC, but amygdala
• Individuating goal MPFC, no amygdala
Shown for 2 sec. at the beginning of each block of 12 faces
Instructions (Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)
Stimuli & Design (Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)
+
11 sec.
1 sec.
2 sec.
Participants:
• 18 students (10 women, Mage = 20)
Independent variables: • Judgment (dot, age, vegetable)
• Warmth x competence
Dot: No MPFC, not Social
y: 62
y: 52
y: 42
y: 32
Age task
x: 5, y: 42, z: 30
Vegetable task
x: 8, y: 38, z: 32
MPFC Activation: Social Cognition
“Re-humanization (Harris & Fiske, SCAN, 2007)
Previously
Dehumanzed.
Targets
Already
Humanized
Targets
Thank you
Mina Cikara, Princeton (PhD expected ’09)
Lasana Harris, PhD ‘07 now post-doc, New York University
Recommended