Click here to load reader

From De-humanization and Objectification, to Rehumanization · PDF file From De-humanization and Objectification, to Rehumanization From Animosity to Empathy: Neuro-Imaging Studies

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of From De-humanization and Objectification, to Rehumanization · PDF file From De-humanization...

  • 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

    W a

    rm th

    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

    W a

    rm th

    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

    P ro

    p o

    rt io

    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 prejudicesdistinct 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

Search related