7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

1/19

The Modem Face of Prejudice and Structural Features That Moderatethe Effect of Cooperat ion on Affect

Eric J . Vanman, Brenda Y. Paul, Tiffany A. Ito, and Norman Mi l l e rUnivers i ty o f Sou thern Ca l i fo rn iaFacial muscle activity and self-reports were examined for racial bias in 3 studies. In the first 2experiments, White participants imagined cooperating with a Black or White partner. Experim ent 1manipulated reward structure in the context of cooperating with a deficient partner. Experimen t 2manipulated partner deficiency and willingness to expend compensato ry effort. O n both facial EM Gand self-report measures, joint rewards produced more negative affect than independent rewards.However, all partners were liked mo re when they w ere willing to try to compensate for their deficits.In addition, more liking was reported for Black partners, but EMG activity indicated bias againstBlacks. Experiment 3 investigated individual differences in prejudice. Again, a greater preferencefor Blacks than Whites occurred on self-report measures, but in their facial muscle activity, high-prejudiced participants exhibite d bias again st Blacks.

In the years fo l lowing the 1954 ru l ing by the U.S . SupremeCour t in favor o f the p la in t i f f in Brown vs. Board of Education,ins t i tu t iona l ized rac ia l desegrega t ion , pa r t i cu la r ly in schools ,becam e a fac t o f l if e . At the same t ime , a l though coopera t iveteam lea rn ing in te rven t ions were shown to be h igh ly e f fec t ivein impro v ing the mas te ry o f cur r icu l um mate r ia l s (e .g . , Johnson ,Maruy ama, Johnson , Ne lson , & Skon , 1981; Sharan e t a l . , 1984 ;S lav in , 1983) , they a l so came to be advoca ted as use fu l in te r -ven t ions fo r improv ing in te rgroup re la t ions wi th in e thn ica l lyhe te rogeneous se t t ings such as desegrega ted schools . Spec i f icin te rven t ions inc lude Teams Games Tournament (Edwards ,DeVr ies , & Snyder , 1972) , Learn ing Toge ther ( Johns on & John-son , 1975) , S tuden t Team Learn ing Div is io ns (S lav in , 1978) ,J igsaw (Aronson , Blaney , S tephan , S ikes , & Snapp , 1978) , and

Eric J. Vanman, Brenda Y. Paul, Tiffany A. Ito, and Norman Miller,Department of Psychology, University of Southern California. TiffanyIto is now at the Department of Psychology, Oh io State University.This research was supported by Grants BNS-8719439 and SBR-9319752 f rom the National Science Foundation, by a H aynes predoctoralfellowship, and by Grant P05MH52384-01A1 from the National Instituteof Mental Health. We thank D ebra Kaplan for her assistance in the datareductio n of Experim ent 1 and Stephanie Gates, Lorretta Abbott, JohnGundry, Liberty Dillinger, Roxana Alvarez, Harte Chaden, and RinotiAmi n for their assistance in the data collection and reduction of Experi-ment 3. We are also grateful to Louis Tassinary for helpful commentson a draft of this article. Portions of Experiment 1 were presented at the1990 Annual Meeting of the Soc iety for Psychophysiological Research,Boston.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to EricJ. Vanman, who is now at Department of Psychology, Emory University,532 North Ki lgo Circle, Atlanta, Georg ia 30322-1100. Electronic mailmay be sent via the Internet to evanman@emory.edu.

G r o u p I n v e s t i g a t i o n ( S h a r a n & H e r t z - L a z a r o w i t z , 1 9 8 0 ) . D e -sp i te impor tan t d i f fe rences in the ways in which these in te rven-t ions s t ruc tu re the t eam task and rewards , the i r p roponen ts un i -fo rmly recommend tha t in rac ia l ly he te rogeneous se t t ings t eamsbe cons t ruc ted to be he te rogeneous wi th respec t to the soc ia lca tegory m embersh ips o f i ts members . The theore t ica l founda-t ion fo r a rgu ing tha t these inven t ions can improve in te rgroupre la t ions i s the con tac t hypothes i s , whic h pos i t s tha t d i rec t in te r -persona l in te rac t ion wi th mem bers o f a d i s l iked soc ia l ca tegorywi l l l ead to more pos i t ive behav ior and a t t i tudes toward them.Meta -ana lyses o f the ex tens ive f i e ld and labora to ry resea rchon these coopera t ive in te rven t ions show tha t they do inc reasein te rpersona l a t t rac t ion toward ou t -g roup members ( Johnson ,Johnson , & Maruyama , 1984; Mi l le r & Davidson -Podgorny ,1987) . More spec i f ica l ly , a coopera t ive t ask s t ruc tu re l eads togrea te r ou t -g roup l ik ing than does a compet i t ive o r ind iv idua l i s -t i c se t t ing ( Johnson e t a l . , 1984) . In con junc t ion wi th o thersoc ios t ruc tu ra l changes in soc ie ty ov er the l as t th ree decades ,the widespread use o f these coopera t ive p rocedures p resu mablyhas con t r ibu ted to the more pos i t ive fee l ings about members o fd i sadvan taged groups seen in cur ren t , a s compared wi th p rev i -ous , genera t ions o f Whi tes . N a t ionw ide po l l s , fo r example , ind i -ca te a sh i f t among Whi tes away f rom s t rong ly nega t ive fee l ingst o w a r d B l a c k s ( S c h u m a n , S t e e h , & B o b o , 1 9 8 5 ) .

To examine th i s apparen t improvement in a t t i tudes towardd isadvan taged groups , however , i t i s impor tan t to measure theinvo lun ta ry , a s we l l a s the vo lun ta ry , a f fec t ive reac t ions o fWhi tes . M os t dependen t m easures in s tud ies o f coopera t ive in -te rac t ion have been o f the vo lun ta ry k ind : nomina t ion and ros te r -ra t ing soc iomet r ic measures , L iker t - type i t ems assess ing l ik ing ,a t t i tude sca les ind ica t ing percep t ions o f be ing l iked , and so on .At th i s po in t in t ime , however , i t i s unc lea r how to in te rpre t

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997, Vol. 73, No. 5, 941-959Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/97/$3.00941

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

2/19

94 2 VANMAN, PAUL, ITO, AND MILLERsuch measures. In today's society, norms dictate that one shouldnot express negative attitudes about others on the basis of theirethnicity, even though one might truly harbor such evaluations(Dov idio & Fazio, 1992; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1981; McCona-hay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981). Therefore, when evidence frommeasures under voluntary control indicates positive feelings onthe part of Whites toward Blacks, it may reflect social desirabil-ity concerns. Moreover, individuals who exhibit such respon-siveness to normative constraint s may not even be aware of theirtrue sentiments (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nisbett & Wilson,1977).

In response to these concerns about voluntary expressions ofattitudes, researchers have turned to the use of more involun tarymeasures of intergroup bias and stereotyping. These latter as-sessments are believed to tap into the automatic processes in-volved in such reactions (Devine, 1989a, 1989b; Dovidio &Gaertner, 1993; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu , Powell, & Kardes, 1986).For example, Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995,Study 1 ) used a priming task developed by Fazio et al. (198 6)to examine ethnic attitudes by assessing automatic evaluationsof attitude objects. Photographs of White, Black, and other (i.e.,Asian and Hispanic) faces, each presented for 315 ms, werefollowed 135 ms later by either a positive or negative adjective.Participants pressed a key labeled good , or one labeled bad,to indicate their judgment of each word. The latency of theirjudgments served as the dependent measure. Whereas Whiteparticipants had shorter latencies to positive words that werepreceded by White photos as compared with those preceded byBlacks, Black participants had shorter latencies to negativewords that were preceded by White photos than those precededby Blacks. Moreover, the variabil ity among the la tency measuresof White participants predicted individual differences in theirbehavior toward the Black experimenter and their attributionsof responsibi lity for the riots that followed the announcementof the verdict of the Rodney King beating trial.

In a simi lar study, Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, and Kraus ( 1995,Study 1 ) used a p riming task in which either the prime wordB l a c k s or Whi t e s was presented for 2 s, followed by a probeword (D ovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986 ). The l atency of the partic-ipant's judgment about whether the probe word could ever betrue of the p rime word was the dependent variable. Their results,however, contrast sharply with those of Fazio et al. (1995).Although Black participants showed evidence of ethnocentrismon this measure, White partic ipants did not. Yet on nearly everyother more voluntary measure, the White participants evidencedmore positive views of the Blacks at their campus than of theWhites. In another study in which the exposure time of theprime was reduced to 500 ms (Judd et al., 1995, Study 3), Whiteparticipants exhibited outgroup favoritism, an effect opposite indirection to that of ethnocentrism. That is, they responded withshorter latencies to negative traits when primed by Wh i t e s thanwhen primed by B l a c k s and slightly shorter latencies for re-sponding to the positive traits when primed by B l a c k s thanwhen primed by Whi tes . The authors concluded that the apparentpositive responses of White participants to Blacks in these twostudies are genuine, arguing that the data from the pr iming taskare inconsistent with a social desirability explanation, and that,in fact, "White American participants showed a marked retuc-

tance to treat ethnicity as a valid basis for organization" (p.477).

The data from Fazio et al. (1995) and Judd et al. (1995) thusprovide a conflicting picture of the attitudes of White collegestudents toward Blacks in the past decade. It should be noted,however, that these studies involved the presentation of primesat exposure times in which participants are aware of the prime.Moreover, in Study 1 Judd et al. explicitly told participants thatthe primes referred to Whites and Blacks at the University ofColorado. Likewise, in Study 2 they told participants that theprimes referred to Whites and Blacks in the United States as awhole. Consequently, because of their awareness of the meaningof the primes, participants may have been motivated to controltheir initial automatic propensity, and thereby inhibit their ex-pression of spontaneous negative feelings (Dovidio & Fazio,1992).

In response to this possibility, some researchers (Devine,1989b; Locke, MacLeod, & Walker, I994; Wi ttenbrink, Judd, &Park, 1997) have used primes of shorter duration in whichthe prime is hypothesized to be processed without entering theparticipant's awareness. Devine (1989b) showed that when so-cial category labels or stereotypic descriptors serve as primes,the priming of the stereotype associated with Blacks leads Whiteparticipants to rate ambiguous behavior by a target person asmore hostile, regardless of the partici pant' s score on the ModernRacism Scale (McConahay et al., 1981 ). However, Locke et al.(1994) showed Australian participant s either the word Abor i g i -n e s or your s e l f , followed 240 ms later by a 20-ms presentationof a trait word that was immediately masked by a colored patternof letter fragments. On the Abo r i g i n e s trials, highly prejudiced(as indicated by Modern Racism Scale scores) White Austra-lians exhibited more color-naming interference when the traitwas stereotypic of Aborigines than when it was not, whereasthose low in prejudice showed no differential color-naming inter-ference. Similarly, Wittenbrink et al. (1997) presented in a prim-ing study the words b l a c k or whi t e for 15 ms, followed by aletter string, for which participants were instructed to indicatewhether it was a word or nonword. Among these strings werepositively and negatively valenced words that were stereotypicalof either Whites or Blacks in the United States. Shorter reactiontimes occurred when positive, white-stereotypical words werepreceded by the whi t e prime, and when negative, black-stereo-typical words were preceded by the b l a c k prime. Moreover,this implicit prejudice effect was also found to correlate withparticipants' scores on a variety of self-report measures of racialattitudes. Thus, both the findings of Locke et al. and Witt enbrinket al. make the model offered by Devine (1989b), that high-and low-prejudiced individuals do not differ in their automaticlevel of processing, somewhat implausible.

In sum, involunta ry measures of cognitive processes in in-tergroup responding have yielded mixed findings. They haveindicated that Whites' "automatic" responses to Blacks canbe characterized as (a) biased against Blacks (Devine, 1989b;Wittenbrink et al., 1997), ( b) altogether elimina ted (Judd etal., 1995, Study 1 ), ( c) biased in reverse so as to favor Blacks(Judd et al., 1995, Study 3), and/o r (d)moder ated by individualdifferences (Augustinos, Ahrens, & Innes, I994; Fazio et al.,1995; Locke et al., 1994; Wittenbr ink et al., 1997). Whatever

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

3/19

RACIAL BIAS AND THE FACE 943the case, all of these studies have focused on cognitive processesunderlying prejudice.

Other researchers have argued that measures that are af-fectively based are more likely to be consistent and strong pre-dictors of racial and ethnic attitudes (e.g., Stangor, Sullivan, &Ford, 1991; Vanman & Miller, 1993). This view is in accordwith that of some attitude theorists who have proposed thatemotions predict some behaviors better than more cognitivelybased measures of attitudes (Breckler & Wiggins, 1989;Zanna & Rempel, 1988). For example, participants' specificemotional feelings (e.g., hopeful, afraid) about different na-tional, ethnic, and religious groups are more predictive of theirresponses to a modified version of the Bogardus (1925) socialdistance scale than are individual or consensual stereotypes(Stangor et al., 1991 ). Similarly, Judd et al. (1995) found thatWhites did express ethnocentrism on one mea su re -- a thermom-eter_like fee lin g scale. Ignoring the issue of why (in light of ourprevious discussion about the constraining effect of contempo-rary social norms) Judd et al.'s participants might be motivatedto express, rather than mask their negative feelings, it is clearthat both Stangor et al.'s questionnaires and Judd et al.'s ther-mometer scale elic it volunta ry responses. More generally, Ep-stein (1994) argued that of the two cognitive systems, the af-fective-experi ential system is more dominant than the rationalsystem in most situations, being more efficient and less effortful.By contrast with the rational system, which manifests itselfprimarily through the medium of language and requires justifi-cation by means of logic and evidence, the affective systemoperates more crudely and processes information automaticallyand rapidly. Thus, on the basis of these considerations, alongwith our previous arguments, i nv o l un t a r y a f f e c t i v e me as ur e sare most likely to reflect uncontrolled, automatic reactions tooutgroup members. On the basis of this reasoning, in our re-search we used psychophysiological measures to assess invol un-tary affective reactions to individual members of socialcategories.

Previous researchers in intergroup relations (e.g., Cooper,1959; Porier & Lott, 1967; Rankin & Campbell, 1955; Tog-nacci & Cook, 1975; Vidulich & Krevanick, 1966) similarlyhave looked for an involuntary psychophysiological marker ofethnic prejudice by measuring electrodermal activity. Thesestudies used photographs of targets, written descriptions ofgroups, or the presence of confederates whose ethnicity waseither the same as or different from the participant's. Someparticipants in these studies indeed showed "increased arousal"to members of the out-group in comparison with targets fromthe in-group (e.g., Rankin & Campbell, 1955). Most of thisresearch, however, either failed to show a relationship betweenthe valence of the participant's reported racial attitudes andEDA or suffered from other methodological concerns. Instead,the most consistent finding was that increased EDA sometimesaccompanied attitude intensity, whether favorable or unfavor-able toward the out-group target (Cacioppo & S andman, 1981 ).

In contrast, facial electromyography (EMG) is a better re-sponse system for differentiating the valence and intensity ofaffective reactions. In particular, the z y g o m a t i c u s m a j o r (themuscle in the cheek that pulls up the lip comer) and the corru-gator superc i l i i (the muscle above the eye that pushes the browstogether) reliably exhibit increased activity during times at

which the participant later reports having experienced positiveor negative affect, respectively, even though the face showed noovert expression at the time (Cacioppo, Petty, Losch, & Kim,1986; Fridlund, Schwartz, & Fowler, 1984; McHugo, Smith, &Lanzetta, 1982). And, consistent with our previous argument,EMG typically is not susceptible to some of the problems associ-ated with traditional self-report measures, such as socially desir-able responding. This is especially true when participants areunaware that their facial muscles are being recorded (Mc-Hugo & Lanzetta, 1983). Therefore, in the research we reportherein, we used measures of facial EMG to assess nonvoluntaryaffective reactions of Whites to Blacks.

To investigate the potential utility of facial EMG as an invol -untary affective measure of intergroup attitudes, we examinedit in the context of specific features of cooperative interventionsthat moderate negative attitudes toward teammates. As we havenoted, cooperative team learning procedures have been a widelyused and apparently effective way to ameliorate intergroup biasand ethnocen trism in desegregated and ethnically heterogeneousschool settings. Recommendat ions regarding the detail s of theirimplemen tation, however, differ. Some researchers have stronglyadvocated team-based, rather than individual, rewards (Cohen,1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1992). Inherent in team-based re-wards is common-fate, which is viewed by some (Gurin &Townsend, 1986; Rabbie & Horwitz, 1988; Rabbie, Schot, &Visser, 1989) as the critical theoretical ingredient for a senseof shared identity. Even such seemingly trivial shared experi-ences as having the same birthday, can produce a sense of bond-ing and identification (Prentice & Miller, 1992). Thus, advo-cates of team-based rewards expect that their use will breakdown the effect of category distinctions. By contrast, however,others (e.g., Fiske & Ruscher, 1993; Harr ington & Miller, 1992;Slavin, 1992) have contested the wisdom of imposing a jointreward structure within the context of cooperative team learning.Instead, they have advocated the retention of the individual re-ward structure that characterizes more standard pedagogicalpractice.

In assessing the effect of reward structure it is important tostudy it in an ecologically valid context. In ethnically heteroge-neous school settings, White students frequently approach coop-erative situations with the expectancy that their Black classmatesare deficient in the skills required for successful completionof the task (Cohen, 1982). Recent analyses of stereotypes incontemporary U.S. society (e.g., Devine, 1989b; Dovidio &Fazio, 1992) and in Great Britain (Lepore & Brown, 1997)have revealed that many Whites continue to view Blacks aslazy, less intelligent, and irr esponsible--c haracteri stics that arecertainly not desirable ones in a partner for a school-relatedtask. Consequently, in attempting to fine-tune the structure ofcooperative interventions so as to maximize their ability to in-crease the acceptance of Blacks by Whites, it is ecologicallymore valid to study the effects of reward structure in laboratorycontexts in which the White actors perceive that they exceedtheir teammate in their relevant task competence. Therefore, inExperiment 1 we examined the potential negative effects ofcooperative dependence by using scenarios describing coopera-tive situations in which the participants' own task competenceexceeded that of their imagined partners.

Another feature relevant to ecological validity is that in school

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

4/19

94 4 VANMAN, PAUL, ITO, AND MILLERsettings cooperative teams typically are formed on an ad hocbasis, with little use of team building activities that produceteam loyalty and commitment prior to the team's attempt tomaster the curriculum unit. Although joint rewards or commonfate may be an important contributor to team loyalty under somecircumstances, it is important to recognize that it has adverseconsequences as well. It reduces one's control over one's ownoutcomes. Such loss of control is aversive (e.g., Brehm, 1966;Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Kelley, 1971; Langer, 1975; Swann,1990). Moreover, when a joi nt reward structure is combinedwith an inequality in the resources that team members bring tothe task, the more proficient members can only anticipate apoorer outcome than that which they can expect under an indi-vidual reward structure. Whereas expectations of poor, as op-posed to good, outcomes increase attrac tion toward teammatesin the context of strong group loyalty, by contrast, when thereis little prior commitment to the team the anticipation of a pooroutcome produces strong distaste for one's teammates (Turner,Hogg, Turner, & Smith, 1984).

In sum, under the ecologically valid boundary conditions thatcharacterize the introduction of cooperative team learning intoclassrooms that contain Black and White children, namely, theperceived presence of a deficient partner and the absence of astrongly established team identity, we expect that evaluat ions ofa teammate under a joint reward structure will be more negativethan evaluations produced by an individual reward structure.

Experiment 1In Experiment 1, we hypothesized that the reward structure

of a cooperative interaction task will affect participants' accep-tance of their partner. Specifically, partic ipants will express morefavorable attitudes toward their partner when the reward out-come following task completion is independent of their partner 'sperformance, as compared with situations in which there is ajoint reward based on a composite measure of team perfor-mance. In addition, on paper and pencil self-report measureswe expected White participants to be reluctant to report anyactual (involuntary negative) attitudes they might hold aboutworking with Black partners, and instead, report liking Blacktargets more than Whites. However, because facial EMG ordi-narily is not susceptible to concerns about social desirability insituations wherein participants are unaware of the relevantEMG-affective relationships or unaware of the fact that the faceis of interest to the experimenter, we expected part icipants toexhibit greater negative affect toward Blacks (viz., increasedbrow and decreased cheek activity) and greater positive affecttoward Whites (viz., increased cheek and decreased brow activ-ity). Likewise, we anticipated differentiation of facial EMG asa func tion of the reward structure. Specifically, we expectedmore negative affect (viz., increased brow activity and de-creased cheek activity) in join t outcome conditions and morepositive affect (viz., increased cheek activity and decreasedbrow activity) in conditions in which reward outcomes wereindependent.

We used a scenario methodology for two reasons. First, thereliability of psychophysiological measures is markedly im-proved with the use of multiple recording epochs (Fridlund &Cacioppo, 1986). Thus, within-subject designs are routinely

used in psychophysiological research (McHugo & Lanzetta,1983) and scenario methodology is a good vehicle for imple-menting a research design that incorporates multiple recordingepochs. Second, scenario methodology more efficiently providesan opportunity for examining the effects of the independentvariables across an array of tasks and situations.

Some have argued that the role-playing procedures implicitin scenario methodology are invariably invalid (e.g., Cialdini &Fultz, 1990). Elsewhere, however, we have strongly counteredthis view (Miller & Carlson, 1990). We do recognize the appro-priateness of researchers' skepticism about whether there is con-vergence between participants' estimates of their behavioral re-sponses to the situations depicted in scenarios and their own(or others) actual behavior in simila r real-life settings. As oftenas not, judges who served in role-playing replications of re-search were unable to predict the behavior of the participantsin the orig inal study (A. G. Miller, 1972). Moreover, i n a meta-analytic assessment of this issue, Miller, Lee, and Carlson(1991) failed to provide evidence supporting the validity ofjudges' predictions of the behavior of study participants.

By contrast with this outcome for the prediction of behavior,however, and most import ant for our purposes here, we haveshown that judges can reliab ly predict the affective states andthe cognitions induced in research participants by experimentalmanipulat ions. Meta-analytically confirming the convergent va-lidity of judges' ratings of study participant s' affect, their ratingswere positively and reliably correlated with the magnitudes ofthe manipu lation check effect sizes that reflected the strengthof each of two types of experimental inductions of affect. Simi-larly, such convergent validity was also reliably confirmed fortheir judgments regarding each of two experimentally manipu-lated cognitions (Miller et al., 1991 ). In addition, other meta-analytic research has yielded over 20 instances in which judges'inferences about study participants' emotional and cognitivestates, based on their reading of method sections, have reliablyevidenced theoretically predicted construct validity. These con-firmations span such diverse affective and cognitive states asanger, anxiety, frustration, fear of retaliation, global negativeaffect, guilt, happiness, inhib ition-c onflic t, nterpersonal simi-larity, irritation or provocation, objective self awareness, per-ceived psychological cost, responsibility, self-focus, and sadness(Bet tencour t & Miller, 1996; Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988;Carlson & Miller, 1987, 1988; Ito, Miller, & Pollock, 1996;Miller &Carlson, 1990; Urban & Miller, 1997). Moreover, insome of this research evidence was provided of discriminativeconstruct validity for judg es' assessments of such closely relatedemotional states as sadness and guilt, self-focus and objectiveself-awareness, anxiety and objective -self awareness, and angerand frustration. Likewise, other researchers have provided simi-lar confirming evidence regarding the construct validity ofjudges' assessments of the affect and cognitions experienced bystudy participants (Bowers & Clum, 1988; Eagly & Carli, 1981;Eagly & Crowley, 1986; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hull & Bond,1986; Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Mullen et al., 1985; Steele &Southwick, 1985).

On the basis of this array of evidence attesting to both theconvergent and construct validity of judges' assessments of theemotional experiences and cognitions of study participants, wehad strong reason to believe in the appropriateness of our use

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

5/19

R A C I A L B I A S A N D T H E F A C E 945o f s c en a r i o m e t h o d o l o g y f o r e x a m i n i n g o u r o w n p a r t ic i p a n t s 'a f f e c t iv e r e a c t i o n s t o t h e s c e n a r i o s i n w h i c h w e a s k e d t h e m t oi m a g i n e t h e m s e l v e s . T h a t i s , i n t h e p r e v i o u s m e t a - a n a l y t i c r e -s e a r c h i t w a s t h e j u d g e s ' r a ti n g s o f h o w t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w o u l dr e s p o n d a f f e c t i v e l y t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i nt h e m e t h o d s e c t io n s ( s c e n a r i o s ) t h a t t h e y re a d , w h i c h w e r er e l i a b ly c o r r e l a t e d w i t h ac t u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s ' m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c ke f f e c t s i z e s. T h u s , i n t h i s p r i o r r e s e a r c h j u d g e s ' a f f e c ti v e r e a c -t i o n s to s c e n a r i o s ( m e t h o d s e c t i o n s ) w e r e s h o w n t o b e v a li d .C o n s e q u e n t l y , w i t h o u t d e n y i n g t h a t t h e in d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c so f p a r t ic u l a r r e s e a r c h s e t t i n g s m a y w e l l h a v e d i s t i n c ti v e m o d e r -a t i n g e f f e c t s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e v o l u n t a r y a f f e c t iv e r e a c t i o n sg i v e n b y o u r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g t h e i rl i k i n g t o w a r d t h e p e r s o n d e s c r i b e d i n e a c h s c e n a r i o a r e li k e lyt o c o r r e s p o n d i n a g e n e r a l s e n s e t o t h e d e g r e e o f l ik i n g t h a t t h e yw o u l d h a v e e x p r e s s e d o n v o l u n t a r y r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e s , w e r et h e y a c t u a l l y i n t h e s i tu a t i o n d e p i c t e d i n e a c h s c e n a r i o .

M e t h o dP ar t i c i pan t s and de s i gn . T w e n t y - s e v e n W h i t e , n o n - H i s p a n i c s t u -d e n t s ( 1 4 m e n a n d 1 3 w o m e n ) e n r o l l e d i n a n i n t ro d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y

c o u r s e a t t h e U n i v e r s i ty o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n ia ( U S C ) p a r t i c ip a t e d f o re x t r a c r e d i t i n a 2 ( r e w a r d s t r uc t u r e : i nde pe nde n t , j o i n t ) 2 ( r a c e o fp a r t n e r: W h i t e , B l a c k ) w i t h i n - s u b j e c t d e s i g n t h a t , w h e n c o m b i n e d w i t ht y p e o f s c e n a r i o , r e su l t e d i n 1 6 2 o b s e r v a t io n s f o r e a c h o f t h e d e p e n d e n tm e a s u r e s i n e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n .

M at e r i a l s . S t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d o f w r i t t e n s c e n a r i o s p r e s e n t e d o n ac o m p u t e r m o n i t o r a n d c o l o r s l i d e s t h a t a p p e a r e d o n a s c r e e n m o u n t e don t he w a l l 3 m i n f r on t o f t he pa r ti c i pa n t . S e ve n ge ne r a l s c e na r i os ,e a c h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 0 w o r d s l o n g , d e s c r ib e d a d i s t i n ct c o o p e r a ti v et a s k w i t h o n e p a r t n e r : ( a ) a t e a m r u n n i n g r a c e , ( b ) a d e b a t e t e a mc o m p e t i t i o n , ( c ) a " b a g - o f f " t e a m c o m p e t i t i o n a t a ~ g r o ce r y s t o r e, ( d )a w o r k t e a m p e r f o r m i n g a u t o d e t a i l in g a t a c a r w a s h , ( e ) a t e a m r e s e a r c hpr o j e c t f o r a soc i o l ogy c l a s s , ( f ) a w or k sh i f t ma k i ng s a l e s a t t heu n i v e r si t y b o o k s t o r e , a n d ( g ) a t e a m o n a g a m e s h o w s o l v i n g c r o s s w o r dpuz z l e s . T he pa r t ne r w a s a l w a ys de sc r i be d a s be i ng de f i c i e n t i n t hea b i l i t i e s r e qu i r e d f o r t he t a sk . F o r e xa mpl e , t he ga me show sc e na r i os t a te d t h a t " B o b ( J i l l) h a s n e v e r se e n t h i s s h o w b e f o r e , n o r d o e s h e( s h e ) r e g u l ar l y d o c r o s s w o r d p u z z l e s. Y o u, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a t c h t h es h o w o f t e n a n d c a n s o l v e s u c h p u z z l e s q u i t e e a s il y . " I n n o n e o f t h esc e na r i os w a s t he r e a ny i nd i c a t i on t ha t t he t e a m ha d a h i s t o r y o f e x i s -t e n c e a s a t e a m o r t h a t i ts m e m b e r s h a d p r e v i o u s l y p r a c t ic e d t o g e t h e ra s a t e a m,

E a c h s c e n a r i o w a s p r e s e n t e d f o u r t i m e s , w i th t w o p r e s e n t a t io n s d e -p i c t i n g r e w a r d s b a s e d o n i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t w o d e p i c t i n g aj o i n t r e w a r d s t ru c t u re . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e t e a m r e s e a r c hpr o j e c t w a s a l w a ys t he s a me , e xc e p t f o r t he l a s t t w o se n t e nc e s . F O r t hei nde pe n de n t r e w a r d s t r uc t u r e , pa r t i c ipa n t s r e a d , " Y our f i na l g r a de w i l lb e d e t e r m i n e d b y h o w w e l l j u s t y o u d o o n y o u r p a r t o f th e t a s k . " F o rt h e j o i n t r e w a r d s t r u ct u r e , t h e y r e ad , " T h e t w o o f y o u w i l l r e c e i v e t h es a m e g r a d e , w h i c h w i l l b e b a s e d o n h o w w e l l t h e e n ti r e p r o j e c t i s d o n e . "

" T h e 2 8 s l i d e s w e r e p h o t o g r a p h s o f s t u d e n t s ( 7 W h i t e m e n , 7 W h i t ew o m e n , 7 B l a c k m e n , a n d 7 B l a c k w o m e n ) t a k e n o n t h e c a m p u s e s o fU S C a n d U n iv e r s it y o f C a l i f o r n ia , L o s A n g e l e s 2 y e a r s b e f o r e . T h ep h o t o s s h o w e d i n d i v id u a l s s m i l i n g s l i g h tl y i n a v a r i e t y o f o u t d o o r a n di n d o o r s e t ti n g s , n o n e o f w h i c h c o u l d b e i d e n t if i e d a s b e i n g t a k e n o n ap a r t i cu l a r c a m p u s . A l l s l i d e s w e r e c h o s e n f r o m a l a r g e r s a m p l e o f s l i d e st ha t ha d be e n r a t e d f o r a t t r a c t i ve ne s s a nd f a mi l i a r i t y by pa r t i c i pa n t sf r o m a n i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y c l a s s f r o m a p r e v i o u s s e m e s t e r. S l i d e sr a t e d e x t r e me l y a t t r a c t i ve o r e x t r e me l y una t t r a c t i ve w e r e no t c hose n f o ri nc l us i on i n t h i s s t udy , no r w e r e a ny s l i de s o f i nd i v i dua l s t ha t a p i l o tp a r t i ci p a n t r e c o g n i z e d .

P roc e dure . T he pa r t i c i pa n t s f i r s t a t t e nde d a g r oup i n t r oduc t o r y s e s -s i o n i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e s h o w n a s l i d e p re s e n t a t io n a b o u t t h e p r o c e d u r e st o b e u s e d a t t h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n . T h e y w e r e n o t t o l d t h a t f a c ia l m u s c l em o v e m e n t s w e r e t o b e r e c o r d e d , b u t i n s t e a d w e r e t o l d t h e e l e c tr o d e s o nt h e h e a d m e a s u r e d i n v o l u n t a r y n e u r a l i m p u l s e s t h a t e m a n a t e f r o m t h eh e a d . F o r e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , a B l a c k , f e m a l e u n d e r g r a d u a t e o ra Whi t e , m a l e g r a dua t e s t ude n t s e r ve d a s t he e xpe r i me n t e r f l W he n t hepa r t i c i pa n t a ppe a r e d a t t he e xpe r i me n t a l s e s s i on , he o r she w a s s e a t e d i na l a r ge , c om f or t a b l e r e c l i ne r . T he pa r t i c i pa n t f i r s t f i l l ed ou t a n i n f o r m e dc o n s e n t d o c u m e n t a n d a s h o r t h e a l th q u e s t i o n n a i r e . F o r t h e re m a i n d e ro f t h e s e s s i o n t h e c h a i r w a s r e c l i n e d . T o r e d u c e n o i s e d i s t u r b a n c e s f r o mo u t s i d e t h e r o o m , a r e c o r d i n g o f a s o f t c o n t i n u o u s r a i n fa l l w a s p r e s e n t e df r o m t w o s p e a k e r s m o u n t e d b e h i n d t h e p a r t ic i p a n t.

S u r f a c e E M G a c t iv i ty w a s r e c o r d e d u s i n g A g - A g C 1 e l e c t r o d e s ( 4m m i n d i a m e t e r ) p l a c e d i n p a ir s o v e r t h e b r o w ( c or ruga t or supe rc i l i i ) ,c h e e k ( z y g o m a t i c u s m a j o r ) , a nd l ow e r l ip ( orb i c u l ar i s o r i s ) r e g i o n s o nt h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e f a ce . L o w e r - l i p E M G a c t iv i ty w a s r e c o r d e d b e c a u s ei t ha s no t t yp i c a l l y be e n f ound t o va r y a s a f unc t i on o f t he a f f e c t i ves i gn i f i c a nc e o f a s t i mu l us ( P e t t y & Ca c i oppo , 198 3) , a nd t hus i t w a sn o t e x p e c t e d t o v a r y a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s . T h ee x a c t l o c a t i o n s f o r e l e c t r o d e p l a c e m e n t f o r e a c h r e c o r d i n g r e g i o n f o l -l o w e d p r e v i o u s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d p a r a m e t r i c s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e s es i t e s ( F r i d l und & C a c i opp o , 1986 ; T a s s ina r y , Ca c i op po , & G e e n , 1989 ;T a s s i na r y , V a nma n , G e e n , & Ca c i oppo , 1987) . T o r e duc e pa r t i c i pa n ta w a r e n e s s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l h y p o t h e s e s , d u m m y e l e c t r o d e s w e r ep l a c e d on t he ba c k o f t he ne c k t o d i ve r t a t t e n t i on f r om t he f a c e a s t hes i t e o f i n t e r e s t. 2 I n a dd i t i on , he a r t r a t e w a s r e c o r de d f r om t w o e l e c t r ode s( 1 c m i n d i a me t e r ) u s i ng a L e a d I c onf i gu r a t i on ( i . e . , one e l e c t r odep l a c e d o n e a c h f o r e a r m ) .

T he pa r t i c i pa n t w a s t he n i n s t r uc t e d t o r e s t fo r 5 mi n w i t h e ye s c l ose d .F o l l ow i ng t h i s r e s t i ng pe r i od , t he pa r t i c i pa n t be ga n t he e xpe r i me n t a lt r i a l s . E a c h t r i a l be ga n w i t h t he p r e se n t a t i on o f t he s l i de o f t he t a r ge t .O n e s e c o n d l a t e r th e s c e n a r i o a p p e a r e d o n a c o m p u t e r s c r e e n . T h e p a r t i c -i pa n t t he n r e a d t he s c e na r i o , a nd w a s i n s t r uc t e d t o p r e s s a ke y on ak e y p a d w h e n h e o r s h e w a s r e a d y t o b e g i n i m a g i n i n g t h e s c e n a r i o . I ft he pa r t i c i pa n t t ook l onge r t ha n 45 s t o p r e s s t he ke y , t he t r i a l w a sa bor t e d , t he pa r t i c i pa n t ma de no r a t i ngs f o r t ha t t r i a l , a nd t he ne x t t r i a lbe ga n a f t e r t he spe c i f i e d i n t e rt r i a l i n t e rva l . T he f o l l ow i ng i ns t r uc t i onsa l w a y s a p p e a r e d a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e s c r e e n b e l o w t h e s c e n a r i o d e s c r i p -t i on : W he n y ou t h i nk y ou are r e ady t o i m ag i ne be i ng i n t he s c e nar i o ,pre s s t he bu t t on t o be g i n t he i m ag i ne pe r i od . W h e n t h e p a r t i c i p a n tp r e s s e d t h e k e y , t h e c o m p u t e r s c r e e n c l e a r e d a n d t h e w o r d s I m a g i n eP e r i o d a ppe a r e d . I t w a s a t t h i s po i n t t ha t t he pa r t i c i pa n t i ma g i ne d be i ngi n t he c oope r a t i ve s i t ua t i on w i t h t he t a r ge t f o r 5 s . F o l l ow i ng t he i ma g i nepe r i od , t he s l i de w a s t u r ne d o f f , a nd t he c omput e r s c r e e n c l e a r e d . T hep a r t i c ip a n t t h e n m a d e r a t in g s o n f o u r 9 - p o i n t s c a l e s t h a t m e a s u r e d l i k i n gf o r o n e ' s p a r t n e r ( 1 = d i s l i k e v e ry m uc h , 9 = l i k e v e ry m uc h ) , h a p p i n e s si n t he s i t ua t i on ( 1 = very unhappy , 9 = very ha pp y) , l i ke l i hood o fsuc c e s s ( 1 = very unl ike ly , 9 = very l ike ly ) , a nd t he d i f f i c u l t y o f i ma g i n -i ng one se l f i n t he s i tua t i on ( 1 = very di f f icul t , 9 = very easy) . T h es c a l e s w e r e a n c h o r e d o n l y a t t h e e n d p o i n t s . H i g h s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d ag r e a t e r m a g n i t u d e o f r e s p o n s e . F o l l o w i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e l a s tr a t i ng , t he pa r t i c i pa n t p r e s se d a k e y a nd t h e 15 - s i n t er t r i a l i n te r va l be ga n .T he 28 t r i a ls w e r e p r e se n t e d i n s e ve n b l oc ks o f 4 t r i a l s , w i t h e a c ht r i a l i n t he b l oc k r e p r e se n t i ng one o f t he f ou r c ond i t i ons ( i . e . , i nde pe n-d e n t - W h i t e , i n d e p e n d e n t - B l a c k , d e p e n d e n t - W h i t e , d e p e n d e n t - B l a c k ) .

W e o r i g i n a ll y i n t e n d e d t o h o l d t h e r a c e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r c o n s t a n t( i . e . , B l a c k ) a c r o s s pa r t i c i pa n t s i n bo t h E xp e r i me n t s 1 a nd 2 , bu t p r a c t i -c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ( e .g . , t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t o c o n d u c t e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a ls e s s i o n ) m a d e i t i m p o s s i b l e t o u s e o n l y o n e e x p e ri m e n t e r.

2 I n pos t e xpe r i m e n t a l i n t e r v i e w s a nd de b r i e f i ng , no pa r t i c i pa n t i n t het h r e e e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e e x p r e s s e d a n y a w a r e n e s s o ft h e t r u e p u r p o s e o f t h e E M G r e c o r d i n g s .

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

6/19

94 6 VANMAN, PAUL, ITO, AND MILLERIn addition, a restriction was made in the ordering of the trials so thateach of the seven main scenarios yielded each of the four conditions.Thus, seven trials for each condition were presented, with one trial ineach condition representing one of the seven scenarios. The first trialblock was treated as practice and the reported results are based on meansof the remaining six trials per condition. The order of the trials wasrandomly ordered within each block and the blocks themselves wererandomly ordered in two between-subjects orders.Data acquisition and reduction. EMG signals were relayed througha shielded cable to a Grass 7P3 wideband preampl ifier/integrator usinga pass band of 10 Hz to 5 kHz, The preamplifiers were calibrated toyield a full-scale deflection of a 100 #V signal. The signals were fullwave rectified and smoothed using a contour-following integrator witha time constant of 0.05 s. One second after the imagine period beganon a trial, each channel of EMG was transmitted on-line to a laboratorycomputer, digitized at a rate of 100 samples per second for 5 s, andstored on a hard disk. In addition, during the experimental session therectified and smoothed EMG recordings were continuously displayedon a polygraph, and participants were monitored and videotaped usinga videocamera housed unobtrusively in a "message box" slightly aboveand directly in front of the participant. Data in which artifacts (e.g.,coughing) were detected and for which the responses exceeded full-scale deflection (i.e., 100 #V) resulted in the deletion of approximately5% of all trials. Mean amplitude of EMG activity over each recordingsite was computed for all trials, and these mean amplitudes were aver-aged across trials within a condition (other than the initial practice trial)and within participants to obtain more reliable and normally distributedestimates of treatment effects.3 Of the 27 participants included in thisexperiment, the cheek EMG data of 3 participants and the brow EMGdata of 2 others were not analyzed because of technical difficulties withdata collection. Heart rate was obtained by recording the electrocardio-gram (ECG) signal with a Grass 7P4 preamplifier and tachograph. TheECG record was hand scored and the heart rate calculated by countingthe number of R spikes that occurred during the 5-s epoch and thenconverting the count into beats per minute (BPM).

R e s u l ~Repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance

(MANOVAs) were performed for all dependent measures. Analpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Trial orderwas first treated as a betwe en-subje cts variable, but no interac-tions with this variable were found. Therefore, sub sequent analy-ses collapse d the data across this variable. Analysis of the parti-cipant 's sex revealed neither main effects nor interactions, lead-ing us to collapse across this variable as well in subsequentanalyses. Finally, we also analyzed the e ffect of the experiment-er' s race, but fou nd no significant interactions or main effects f orthis variable on any measure. After these preliminary analyses ofthe effects of any of the between -subjec ts variables, participants'individual scores were then converted to within-sub ject z scoresto increase power for the remaining within-subjects analyses(Bush, Hess, & Wolford, 1993). On the basis of our theorizing,two composite measures tbr each participant were computedfrom these z scores: (a) self-report of affect (i.e., the sum ofthe liking, happiness, and likelihood of success scores, such thatmore positive scores indicate more positive affect) 4 and (b)facial activity (i.e., the diff erence of the cheek and brow activityscores, such that more positive scores indicate more positiveaffect).

Multivariate analysis . To test the hypothesized divergencebetween the affective responses exhibited in self-reports and

Figure 1. Means of the composite self -report measure as a functionof race of partner and reward structure in Experiment 1. Standard errorsare represented by the error bars.

that seen in facial EMG activity in response to the partner'srace, we performed a doubly multivariate analysis (Tabach-nick & Fidell, 1996), in which the type of composite measure(i.e., self-report vs. facial activity) was treated as a variable. Insupport of this hypothesis, the analysis revealed a disordinalinteraction of Measure x Race, F(1, 22) = 27.38, p < .001,indicating that participants reported more positive affect forBlack partners than for Whites on the s elf-report measures, butin their facial activity they exhibited greater negativity towardBlacks. In addition, the main effect of reward structure, F( 1,22) = 38.20, p < .001, indica ted mor e positive affect for theindependent reward structure conditions. Finally, a Measure Reward Structure interaction, F(1 , 22) = 5.13, p = .034, re-flected the fact that the main effect found for reward structurewas stronger on the self-report measure than on the measuresof facial activity. To further explor e these interactions with mea-sure, each composite measure was subsequently analyzedseparately.

Self-report measures. Means and standard errors for thecomposite self-report measure are depicted in Figure 1. Maineffects of race, F( 1, 26) = 10.65,p = .003 and reward structure,F(1 , 26) = 37.14, p < .001, were observed, with participantsreporting more positive affect for Black partners and for partnerswith independent reward structures. Additional post hoc analy-ses on each individual self-report measure were performed andare presented in Appendix A. Inspection of these means revealsa similar pattern of results for all three measures. There wereno significant Race Reward Structure interactions for any ofthese variables, either when combined as a composite measureor analyzed separately.

3 Because we averaged across trials within a condition and there wereso few trials per condition, we were unable to conduct additional analy-ses on the effects of individual scenarios. Future research might addressthe specific type of scenario (e.g ., sports vs. academic) as an independentvariable.4 As a measure of scale reliability, the alpha coefficient of the compos-ite measure of liking, happiness, and likelihood of success was ,781.

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

7/19

RACIAL BIAS AND THE FACE 94 7

Figure 2. Means of the composite facial EMG measure as a functionof race of partner and reward structure in Experiment 1. Standard errorsare represented by the error bars.

Facial act ivi ty . Means and s tandard e r ro rs fo r the compos i tefac ia l ac t iv i ty measure a re dep ic ted in F igure 2 . Ana lyses re -v e a i e d a m a i n e f f e c t o f r a c e, F ( 1 , 2 2 ) = 1 5 .1 1 ,p = . 0 01 , w i t hmore pos i t ive a f fec t fo r Whi te pa r tne rs . In pa ra l le l wi th theou tco me on se l f - repor t s , the re was a l so a main e f fec t o f rewards t ruc tu re, F( 1 , 22) = 7 .35 , p = .013 . Par ti c ipan ts exh ib i ted lesspos i t ive a f fec t in jo in t rewa rd s t ruc tu re condi t ions . Pos t hoca n a l y s e s w e r e p e r f o r m e d o n e a c h f a c i a l E M G m e a s u r e s e p a -ra te ly and a re p resen ted in Appendix A. No s ign i f ican t Race xReward S t ruc tu re in te rac t ions wer e found fo r these var iab les ,e i t h e r w h e n c o m b i n e d a s a c o m p o s i t e m e a s u r e o r a n a l y z e dseparately.

Other measures . Means and s tandard e r ro rs fo r hear t r a tea re p resen ted in F igure 3 . Only a marg ina l main e f fec t o f rewards t ruc tu re was found , F( 1 , 22) = 3 .91 , p = .061 . Hear t r a te wasgrea te r fo r jo in t rew ard s t ruc tu re co ndi t ions . Ana lyse s o f l ipEMG ac t iv i ty revea led no e f fec t s , a s expec ted . F ina l ly , ana lysesof the d i f f i cu l ty ( to imagine the scenar io ) va r iab le revea led noeffects .

1981; Mc Con ahay e t a l . , 1981; Sears , 1988) , the ex tens ion toau tomat ic a f fec t ive responding i s an impor tan t un ique fea tu reo f o u r o u t c o m e s .

In the in t roduc t ion , w e no ted tha t when coopera t ive t eamlearn ing in te rven t ions a re in t roduced in to c lass rooms con ta in ingboth Bla ck and Whi te s tuden ts, the Whi te s tuden ts a re l ike ly tohave expec ta t ions tha t the i r B lack teammates wi l l be de f ic ien tin re levan t ab i l i t i e s . In add i t ion , even though such a rb i t ra rygroupings can p ro duce some sense o f t eam iden t i ty (Ta j fe l ,B iUig , Bundy , & F lament , 1971; Ta j fe l , Nemeth , Jahoda , Cam p-be l l , & Johnson , 1970) , a t the ou tse t o f the t eam ac t iv i ty nosuch loya l ty ex i s t s . In i t s absence , poor ou tcomes p roduce are jec t ion o f t eamm ates (Turner e t a l. , 1984) . Cons i s ten t w i thour p red ic t ions , wi th in the eco log ica l ly va l id con tex t o f hav inga d e f i c i e n t p a r t n e r w i t h w h o m n o p r i o r t e a m c o m m i t m e n t o rh i s to ry p rev ious ly had been es tab l i shed , pa r t i c ipan ts repor tedfee l ing more nega t ive about the t a rge t and the s i tua t ion whenthe scenar io desc r ibe d a jo in t rewa rd s t ruc ture .

I t is impor tan t to no te tha t the ob ta ined d iverge nce o f these l f - repor t and fac ia l EMG measures tha t we ob ta ined as afunc t ion o f race d id no t occur as a func t ion o f reward s t ruc tu re .This l a t t e r resu l t was exp ec ted in tha t fac ia l EMG pa t te rns typ i -ca l ly pa ra l le l se l f - repor t s o f a f fec t ive responses to emot iona ls t imul i tha t a re no t assoc ia ted wi th soc ia l ca tegor ies (e .g . , Cac i -oppo e t a l . , 1986 ; J~ incke , 1994) . T here fore , i t seems rea sonab leto assume tha t the fac ia l EMG responses in th i s s tudy , where inpar t i c ipan ts were no t made aware tha t the i r f ac ia l musc les wereof in te res t , se rved as invo lu n ta ry m easures o f a f fec t ive response .Tha t i s , the more vo lun ta ry p rocesses invo lve d in se l f - repor t sconverged wi th the invo lun ta ry measure on ly fo r tha t va r iab lefor which concern about soc ia l des i rab i l i ty was low. At the samet ime , in repea ted measures scenar io des igns i t i s a lways po ss ib letha t desp i te pe r fec t coun te rba lanc ing , s ome fea tu re o f the sce -nar ios cues the hypothes i s to the pa r t i c ipan ts . In the face o fcompet ing theore t ica l pos i t ions wi th in the coopera t ive l ea rn ingl i t e ra tu re regard ing jo in t ve rsus ind iv idua l reward s t ruc tu re , ac lea r d i rec t iona l b ias regard ing hypothes i s g uess ing on the par to f pa r t i c ipan ts may be less l ike ly . Never the less , the pa ra l le l

D i s c u s s i o nWhen imagin ing work ing wi th t a rge t pa r tne rs , bo th vo lun ta ry

( i .e . , se l f - repor t ) and invo lun ta ry ( i .e . , f ac ia l EMG) measuresd i f fe ren t ia ted par t i c ipan ts ' a f fec t ive reac t ions on the bas i s o fthe i r pa r tne r ' s r ace and the t ask reward s t ruc tu re . How ever , con-f i rming our p red ic t ions , a d i sc repancy be tween par t i c ipan ts 'se l f - repor t s and the EMG da ta was found wi th regard to therace var iab le . Par t i c ipan ts repor ted l ik ing Black ta rge t s morethan ta rge t s o f the i r own race . They a l so repo r ted mo re happ i -ness and g rea te r l ike l ihood of success when imagin ing work ingwi th Blacks . By con t ras t , ana lyses revea led EMG ac t iv i ty ind ic -a t ive o f more pos i t ive a f fec t toward Whi te t a rge t s ( i .e . , h ighercheek and lower b row ac t iv i ty ) and more nega t ive a f fec t towardB l a c k s ( i . e . , h i g h e r b r o w a n d l o w e r c h e e k a c t i v i t y ) . A l t h o u g hth i s d i sc repanc y be tween the EM G ac t iv i ty and the se l f - repor tda ta i s cons i s ten t wi th o ther recen t repor t s document ing a d i s -sembl ing o f se l f- repor t s o f rac ia l a tt i tudes (Gaer tne r & Dov id io ,

Figure 3. Mean heart rate as a function of race of partner and rewardstructure in Experiment 1. Standard errors are represented by the errorbars.

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

8/19

9 4 8 V A N M A N, P A UL , r i o , A N D M I L L E Ro u t c o m e f o u n d f o r E M G a n d s e l f - re p o r t s r e g a r d i n g a p r e f e r e n c ef o r i n d i v id u a l r e w a r d s t r u c tu r e s q u e l l s a n y r e s i d u a l c o n c e r n r e -g a r d i n g a d e m a n d i n t e r p re t a t i o n o f t h e r e w a r d s t r u c t u r em a n i p u l a t i o n .

W e m a d e n o p r e d i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g h e a r t r a t e b e c a u s e p r e v i o u sr e s e a r c h e r s h a v e f a i l e d to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t m e a s u r e s o f a u to -n o m i c n e r v o u s s y s t e m a c t i v i ty r e l ia b l y i n d e x r a c i a l b a s is . I n -d e e d , o n t h e b a s i s o f o u r r e s u l t s , i t a p p e a r s t h a t h e a r t r a t e d o e sn o t s e r v e a s a m a r k e r o f r a c i a l b i a s. T h e i n c r e a s e i n h e a r t r a t e f o rt h e j o i n t c o n d i t i o n s p r o b a b l y r e f le c t s g r e a t e r a n t i c i p a t e d e f f o r t i ns u c h s i t u a t i o n s ( S m i t h , 1 9 8 9 ) . P a r t i c i p a n t s p r o b a b l y a s s u m e dt h a t t h e y w o u l d h a v e t o w o r k h a r d e r t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e irp a r t n e r s ' s h o r t c o m i n g s i n th o s e c o n d i t i o n s . A s i m i l a r i n c r e a s ei n h e a r t r a t e o c c u r s w h e n p a r t i c i p a n t s a p p r a i s e a s i t u a t i o n a sc h a l l e n g i n g , r a th e r t h a n t h r e a te n i n g ( T o m a k a , B l a s c o v i c h ,K e l s e y , & L e i t te n , 1 9 9 3 ) . H o w e v e r , a s S m it h ( 1 9 8 9 ) h a s p o i n t e do u t , h e a r t ra t e s h o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e m t e r p r e t e d a s a n i n d e xo f a n t i c i p a t e d e f f o r t ; o t h e r f a c t o r s ( e . g . , i n c r e a s e d g e n e r a l s o -m a t i c a c t i v i t y , a n n o y a n c e a b o u t l i k e l y f a i l u r e ) t h a t i n f l u e n c e i tm a y h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s e d a t a .

E x p e r i m e n t 2I n E x p e r i m e n t 1 , w e e x p l i c i t l y m a d e i t c l e a r t o o u r p a r t i c i-

p a n t s t h a t t h e i r p a r t n e r i n e a c h s c e n a r i o w a s r e l a t i v e l y p o o r a tt h e t as k . W e m a d e t h is a c o n s t a n t f e a t u r e o f e a c h t e a m a c t i v i tyb e c a u s e w e t h o u g h t i t i m p o r t a n t t o e x a m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f j o i n tv e r s u s i n d i v i d u a l r e w a r d s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n t h i s c o n t e x t . O u r r e a -s o n i n g w a s t h a t th i s w a s t h e e c o l o g i c a l l y v a l i d b o u n d a r y c o n d i -t i o n f o r th e u s e o f c o o p e r a t i v e t e a m l e a r n in g p r o c e d u r e s a s a ni n t e r v e n t i o n f o r i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r g r o u p a c c e p t a n c e w i t h i n m a n yr a c i a l l y h e t e r o g e n e o u s s c h o o l s e t t i n g s . T h a t i s , t h e s t e r e o t y p e so r e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t W h i t e A m e r i c a n s h o l d t o w a r d A f r i c a nA m e r i c a n s , a s w e l l a s g r o u p - l e v e l a v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e s in a c a -d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e , t y p i c a l l y i m p l y t h a t t h e t a s k p e r f o r m a n c eo f B l a c k s i n s c h o o l s e t ti n g s w i l l b e p o o r e r t h a n t h a t o f W h i t e s .E x p e r i m e n t 1 s h o w e d , a s p r e d i c te d , t h a t w i t h i n a c o n t e x t i nw h i c h o n e a n t i c i p a te s r e l a t iv e l y p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e f r o m o n e , sp a r t n e r a n d i n w h i c h t h e r e i s n o s t r o n g ly e s t a b l i s h e d t e a m l o y a l t yo r i d e n ti ty , b o t h B l a c k a n d W h i t e p a r t n e r s a r e l i k e d b e t t e r w h e no n e ' s o w n r e w a r d o u t c o m e i s n o t li n k e d t o t h a t o f o n e ' s p a r tn e r .T h a t i s , i rr e s p e c t i v e o f r a c e , w i t h a d e f i c i e n t p a r t n e r a n i n d i v i d -u a l r e w a r d s t r u c t u r e p r o d u c e s m o r e p o s i t i v e a f f e c t.

E x p e r i m e n t 1 , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t m a n i p u l a t e p a r t n e r d e f ic i e n c y .I n E x p e r i m e n t 2 , w e e x p l i c i t l y m a n i p u l a t e d w h e t h e r t h e p a r tn e rw a s d e f i c i e n t t o s h o w t h a t t h is v a r i a b l e d o e s i n d e e d c o n t r i b u t ei m p o r t a n t l y t o t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t p r o d u c e d b y j o i n t r e w a r d s .

I n E x p e r i m e n t 2 w e a l s o s o u g h t t o b e t te r u n d e r s ta n d w h y t h ej o i n t o u t c o m e r e d u c e d p o s i t i v e a f fe c t t o w a r d o n e ' s p a r tn e r . O n ec o m p o n e n t o f a n y m e d i a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n i s e v i d e n c e s h o w i n gt h a t e x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n o f a v a r ia b l e p o s t u l a t e d t o s e r v ea m e d i a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n ( e i t h e r f u l l y o r p a r t i a l ly ) e v i d e n c e s t h ep r e d i c t e d e f f e c t . T h e u l t i m a t e a t t r i b u t i o n e r r o r s p e c i f i e s n o t o n l yt h a t n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o b e a s c r i b e d t o o u t -g r o u p t h a n t o i n - g r o u p m e m b e r s , b u t a l s o , t h a t s u c h o u t - g r o u pa t t r i b u t i o n s a r e l i k e l y t o b e s e e n a s s t a b l e , e n d u r i n g c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s o f t h e o u t - g r o u p m e m b e r . S t e r e o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t io n s o fB l a c k s a s l a z y r e p r e s e n t a n i n s t a n c e o f s u c h s t a b l e n e g a t i v ed e p i c t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a m o t i v a t io n a l a t t ri b u te . W e s u s p e c t e d

t h a t s u c h a t t r ib u t i o n s o f l a z in e s s c a n e x p l a i n w h y a j o i n t r e w a r ds t r u c t u re c a n h a v e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s w h e n o n e ' s p a r t n e r i s d e f i-c i e n t. T h e r e f o r e , i n E x p e r i m e n t 2 w e a l s o e x p l i c i tl y m a n i p u l a t e dt h e a m o u n t o f e f f o r t th a t a t e a m m e m b e r w h o w a s d e f i c ie n t a tt h e t e a m t a s k w a s w i l l in g t o e x p e n d o n b e h a l f o f t he t e a m t oi m p r o v e t h e l i k e l ih o o d o f t e a m s u c c e s s . S p e c i f i c a ll y , w e m a n i p u -l a t e d w h e t h e r a d e fi c i e n t m e m b e r o f th e t e a m w a s w i l l in g t om a k e s p e c i a l e f f o r t s t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r h i s o r h e r i n a d e q u a c y a ta t e a m t a s k . T h u s , i n o n e h a l f o f t h e i m a g e r y s c e n a r i o s , o n e ' sp a r t n e r w a s d e f i c i e n t , w h e r e a s i n t h e o t h e r h a l f , s e l f w a s d e f i -c i e n t. C r o s s e d w i t h th i s m a n i p u l a t i o n o f w h i c h t e a m m e m b e rw a s d e f i c i e n t , w a s a m a n i p u l a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e d e fi c i e n t m e m -b e r o f t h e t e a m w a s w i l l i n g to u n d e r t a k e c o m p e n s a t o r y a c t i o n st o m a k e u p f o r h i s o r h e r d e f i c i e n c y .

W e e x p e c t e d t h a t a n u n w i l l in g n e s s o n t h e p a r t o f a ta s k -d e f i c i e n t p a r t n e r t o t a k e r e m e d i a l s t e p s t o i m p r o v e t h e t e a mo u t c o m e e x p l a i n s ( a t l e a s t i n p a r t ) t h e d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o fo u t c o m e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f c o o p e r a t i o n .W h e n a d e f i c i e n t p a r t n e r i s w i l l i n g to t a k e s t e p s i n a d v a n c e s oa s t o i m p r o v e h i s o r h e r p e r fo r m a n c e , t h e e f f e c t s o f j o i n t r e w a r ds t r u c t u r e s i n r e d u c i n g l i k i n g o f t h e p a r t n e r a r e l i k e l y t o b em i t i g a t e d . B y c o n t r a st , w h e n s e l f is t h e d e f ic i e n t m e m b e r o f t h et e a m , o n e ' s w i l l in g n e s s o r l a c k o f m o t i v a t i o n to i m p r o v e o n e ' sl e v e l o f p e r f o r m a n c e p r i o r t o t h e t e a m t a s k i s u n l ik e l y t o m o d e r -a t e a f f e c t t o w a r d o n e ' s t e a m m a t e . F i n a l l y , w e a l s o m a n i p u l a t e dt h e r a c e o f t h e p a r t n e r i n t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t w e w o u l d r e p l i c a t et h e r a c ia l b i a s f i n d in g s o f E x p e r i m e n t 1 .

I n o u r a n a ly s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t 1 , w e c o m b i n e d t h r e e v e r b a lm e a s u r e s i n t o a c o m p o s i t e i n d e x b e c a u s e w e h a d n o r e a s o n t oa n t i c ip a t e d i f f e r e n t o u t c o m e s f o r l i k i n g o f o n e ' s p a r tn e r , h a p p i -n e s s o r p o s i t i v i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o o p e r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n , a n de x p e c t a t i o n o f s u c c e s s. F o r E x p e r i m e n t 2 , h o w e v e r, o u r p r e d i c -t i o n w a s c o n s t r a i n e d t o t h e li k i n g m e a s u r e . I t s e e m e d i n a p p r o p r i -a t e to e x p e c t t h e i n t e ra c t i o n b e t w e e n r e w a r d s t r u ct u r e , w h o i sd e f i c ie n t , a n d w h e t h e r t h e d e f ic i e n t t e a m m e m b e r w a s w i l l i n g o ru n w i l l i n g t o m a k e n e e d e d r e m e d i a l e f f o r ts , t o a f f e c t h a p p i n e s s i nt h e s i tu a t i o n a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f s u c c e s s i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a st h e s e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f f a c t o rs a f f e c t l i k i n g o f o n e ' s p a rt n er . F o re x a m p l e , i f s e l f w e r e d e s c r i b e d a s d e f i c ie n t , b u t t h e p a r tn e r w e r en o t , p a r t i c i p a n t s m i g h t f e e l n e g a t i v e a b o u t t h e s i t u a t i o n , b u te x p r e s s n o d i s l i k e t o w a r d t h e i r p a r t n e r. I n c o n t r a s t , i f t h e p a r t n e rw e r e d e s c r i b e d a s d e f ic i e n t , p a r t i c ip a n t s m a y f e e l c o m p a r a b l yn e g a t i v e a b o u t t h e s i t u a t io n , b u t m i g h t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s l i k e t h e i rp a r t n e r i n t h a t c o n d i t i o n .M e t h o d

Participants and design. Thirty -sev en White, non-Hispanic univer-si ty students ( 18 wom en and 19 men) enrol led in two psychology coursespar ticipated for extra credi t in a 2 ( race o f par tner : W hite, Black) x 2(source o f def iciency: s el l par tner ) x 2 (ef for t : def icient person wil l ingto make effort, deficient person n ot willing to make effo rt) within-subjectdesign. When com bined with the f ive scenarios, the design yielded foreach dependent measure a total of 185 observations within eachcondition.Materials. Forty slides and five general scenarios constituted thestimuli of this experiment. Tw enty-eight slides were the same o nes usedin Experiment 1. An additional 12 were selected fro m a larger poolof slides that we re previou sly rated for attractiveness b y a sample o fparticipants from a similar population at US C, and were thus comparablein attractiveness to the 28 we used previously.

7/27/2019 vanman 1997.pdf

9/19

RACIAL BIAS AND THE FACE 94 9Five of the seven scenarios used in Experiment 1 were again used:

(a) a team running race, (b) a debate team competition, (c) a "bag-of f" team competition at a grocery store, (d) a group research projectfor a sociology class, and (e) a team on a game show solving crosswordpuzzles. In contrast with Experiment 1, all scenarios described a joi ntreward structure. Their endings, however, were varied to ref lect thesource of deficiency and ef fort variables. Using the team running racescenario as an example, in which two members of a physical educationclass are assigned as team members to both run a mile and have theirtimes averaged in a competition among other classes, in the self-deft-cient/not-willing-to-make-the-effort ondition the scenario stated

Jef f is very athletic, having participated in sports all during highschool and winning various trophies at local events. You are slightlyoverweight and avoid the simple act of walking. You are unwillingat this time to spend additional time to get into better shape. Inyour estimate, your team's chance of success in this competitionis unlikely.

In the partner-deficient/willing-to-make-the effort condition, the scenariostated

You are very athletic, having participated in sports all during highschool and winning various trophies at local events. Bill is slightlyoverweight and avoids the simple act o f walking. He has started aprogram of v igorous physical activity. You believe that this extraeffort should be sufficient to give your team a good chance ofwinning the competition.

Procedure. The two experimenters (i.e., a Black woman and a Whiteman) in Experiment 1 were also the experimenters in this study. Theprocedures o f Experiment 1 were replicated, with the following excep-tions. Forty trials were presented to participants in five blocks of 8, witheach trial representing one of the eight conditions formed by the 2 x 2x 2 factorial. Each general scenario was presented eight times, yieldingone instance of each of the conditions. Thus, 5 trials for each conditionwere presented. As in Experiment 1, the first trial block was treated aspractice, leaving the results based on means o f the remaining four trialsper condition. The order of the trials was random within each block andthe blocks themselves were randomly ordered in two between-sub jectsorders. Data acquisition and reduction procedures were identical to Ex-periment 1, with the exception that heart rate was not recorded. Artifactsresulted in the deletion of approximately 6% of all trials. Of the 37participants included in this experiment, the cheek EMG data of 4 partic-ipants and the brow EMG data of 6 others were not analyzed due totechnical difficulties with data collection.

R e s u l ~Again, repeated measures MANOVAs were conducted on all

depende nt variables. The effects of trial order, participan t's sex,and race of experimenter were analyzed separately and wereagain not found to interact with any of the main independentvariables, so all subsequent analyses coll apsed across these vari-ables. Individual scores were then converted to within-subjectz scores. As in Experiment 1, a composite measure of facialactivity (i.e., the difference of the cheek and brow activityscores) was computed. However, as we have noted, in contrastto Experimen t 1, we compu ted a composi te self-report of affectfor the situation (i.e., the sum of the happiness and likelihoodof success scores) that did not include the liking variable. Weexpecte d that as a function of the independen t variables, partici-pants might report feelings about the scenario situation thatwere independent of their liking for the partner. 5

Mult ivar ia te analys is . As in Experiment 1, we conducted adoubly multivariate repeated measures MANOVA, in which thetype o f meas ure (i.e., facial activity, liking of partner, and situa-tional affect ) was treated as a variable to test for the divergenceof the facial EMG and self-r eport measures with respect to race.Indeed, this analysis also revealed a disordinal Measure x Raceinteraction, F(2 , 24) = 6.09, p = .007, wherein participantsdisplayed more positive affect for White partners on the facialactivity measure, but did not confirm this bias for Whites intheir self-repor ts of liking and situational affect. However, whenthose participants who were originally excluded from the mainanalyses because they were missing either cheek or brow EMGdata were retained for the analysis of the liking measure, thissecond augmented analysis of the liking measures reliably con-firmed the self-report of more positive affect toward Black part-ners, as found in Experi men t 1, F( 1, 36) = 3.94, p = .05.That is, in correspo ndence with the outcom e of Experiment 1,participants' self-reports indicated more liking for Black part-ners (M = 0.066, S E = 0.033) than for Whites (M = -0.0 65,S E = 0.033).

In addition, the main eff ect of source of deficiency, F( 1, 25 )= 15.27, p = .001, reflected more positive affect when self wasdeficient. A main effect of effor t, F( 1, 25) = 30 5.80, p < .001,indicated more positive affect when the deficient person waswilling to make the effort. Ordinal interactions of Measure xEffort, F(2 , 24) = 143.80, p < .001, and Measure x Sourceof Deficiency, F(2 , 24) = 18.29, p < .001, revealed that effortand source of deficiency had smaller effects on the facial EMGmeasure than on the self-report measures. The interaction be-tween source of deficiency and effort, F(2 , 24) = 13.09, p