Literature DB >> 29516401

When a face type is perceived as threatening: Using general recognition theory to understand biased categorization of Afrocentric faces.

Heather M Kleider-Offutt1,2, Alesha D Bond3,4, Sarah E Williams3,4, Corey J Bohil3,4.   

Abstract

Prior research indicates that stereotypical Black faces (e.g., wide nose, full lips: Afrocentric) are often associated with crime and violence. The current study investigated whether stereotypical faces may bias the interpretation of facial expression to seem threatening. Stimuli were prerated by face type (stereotypical, nonstereotypical) and expression (neutral, threatening). Later in a forced-choice task, different participants categorized face stimuli as stereotypical or not and threatening or not. Regardless of prerated expression, stereotypical faces were judged as more threatening than were nonstereotypical faces. These findings were supported using computational models based on general recognition theory (GRT), indicating that decision boundaries were more biased toward the threatening response for stereotypical faces than for nonstereotypical faces. GRT analysis also indicated that perception of face stereotypicality and emotional expression are dependent, both across categories and within individual categories. Higher perceived stereotypicality predicts higher perception of threat, and, conversely, higher ratings of threat predict higher perception of stereotypicality. Implications for racial face-type bias influencing perception and decision-making in a variety of social and professional contexts are discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Face processing; Perception; Social cognition

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29516401     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0801-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  41 in total

1.  Social categorization and the perception of facial affect: target race moderates the response latency advantage for happy faces.

Authors:  Kurt Hugenberg
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2005-09

2.  Holistic processing of faces: perceptual and decisional components.

Authors:  Jennifer J Richler; Isabel Gauthier; Michael J Wenger; Thomas J Palmeri
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  A detection advantage for facial threat in the absence of anger.

Authors:  Jonathon R Shasteen; Noah J Sasson; Amy E Pinkham
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2015-06-29

4.  The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data.

Authors:  Debbie S Ma; Joshua Correll; Bernd Wittenbrink
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2015-12

5.  General recognition theory with individual differences: a new method for examining perceptual and decisional interactions with an application to face perception.

Authors:  Fabian A Soto; Lauren Vucovich; Robert Musgrave; F Gregory Ashby
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-02

6.  Stereotype associations and emotion recognition.

Authors:  Gijsbert Bijlstra; Rob W Holland; Ron Dotsch; Kurt Hugenberg; Daniel H J Wigboldus
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2014-02-12

7.  Varieties of perceptual independence.

Authors:  F G Ashby; J T Townsend
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat.

Authors:  John Paul Wilson; Kurt Hugenberg; Nicholas O Rule
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2017-03-13

9.  Categorising intersectional targets: An "either/and" approach to race- and gender-emotion congruity.

Authors:  Jacqueline S Smith; Marianne LaFrance; John F Dovidio
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2015-09-15

Review 10.  War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality.

Authors:  Hannah L F Cooper
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.164

View more
  1 in total

1.  The psychological interaction of spam email features.

Authors:  Sarah E Williams; Dawn M Sarno; Joanna E Lewis; Mindy K Shoss; Mark B Neider; Corey J Bohil
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 2.778

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.