2017 RISE Poster
Undergraduate Category: Health Sciences Degree Seeking: Biology Abstract ID #1898
Have Facial Expression Stereotypes and Prejudice Increased since the 2016 Presidential Election? Jade Mimms
Abstract
Our main goal is to compare and contrast facial expression stereotypes and prejudice before and after the 2016 presidential election. In the previous study, White participants (undergraduate students) viewed facial expressions of White and Black faces and were asked to categorize the face as sad, angry, or disgusted. Despite the stereotypical association between Black and angry, both younger adults were more influenced by context when the target was Black, regardless of the target’s emotion. Participants appeared to have low prejudice and motivation to correct for possible stereotypical association between Black and anger by using the “disgusted” label for Black angry faces. Executive functioning predicted how influenced by context younger adults were when the target was Black and angry. We reopened this study because we wanted collect data post-presidential election to see whether overt prejudice has increased after the campaign.
Background
Identifying facial expressions of emotion helps people navigate the diversity of individuals they encounter in their social environments. Sometimes stereotypes of emotional expression helps people understand social partners better, but other times it hinders relationships and increases prejudice. The emotion and the race of the target, the relevance of the context, as well as the perceiver’s inhibition abilities all play a role in determining the magnitude of context effects.
Results & Discussion Race
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
BlackTherm White ometer Non White
15
89.8000
14.99143
3.87077
17
86.4118
14.24368
3.45460
WhiteTher mometer
White
16
84.6875
18.71085
4.67771
Non White
17
80.4706
21.06572
5.10919
Group Statistics N
Race External Internal
Std. Error Mean
White
16
3.2750
0.82583
0.20646
Non White
17
3.0353
0.92800
0.22507
White
16
4.5625
0.51235
0.12809
Non White
17
4.4706
0.63666
0.15441
External Motivation Internal Motivation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Younger
Older
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
3.07
0.87
51
2.81
0.78
51
3.70
0.38
51
3.51
0.39
50
These are preliminary results as we are still in the process of collecting data from young white participants. We found that there was no difference between White and non-White participants on the motivation scale, the feeling thermometers, or the coded thermometer variable. Compared to the previous study, it does appear that white and non-white participants have increased internal motivation to appear nonprejudiced. The literature says that people tend to be internally motivated to respond without prejudice. The problem is that this does not reflect what actually occurs. In the real-world. there are intentional displays of prejudice like hate crimes and hate speech.
Methods
Several measures were used in this study. The main tasks were a fast emotional categorization task and an emotional implicit association test (IAT). Pictures of black and white faces were shown on the screen for extremely short bursts of time and the participants were asked to select which emotion they thought the face was expressing during the fast emotional categorization task. The emotions were disgusted, sad, and angry, and participants were only categorizing two emotions at a time. The emotional IAT had three different rounds, two practice blocks and the actual test. In the practice blocks, participants were shown faces and asked to categorize them as being either black or white. For the second practice block, participants categorized words as meaning either sad, angry, or disgusted (i.e. disgusted or sad, etc.) In the third round, both words and faces were categorized one at a time. The additional measures were a Stroop test, a FAS word fluency test, and the digit span. Participants also completed two questionnaires , one at the beginning of the study and one at the end. In the last questionnaire participants answered demographic questions (age, racial identity, etc.), completed questions , and then asked to rank their feelings towards black people from 0, cold, to 100, warm using a feeling thermometer.
Left: Emotional IAT faces, right: strop test example.
The Stroop test, FAS word fluency test, and digit span were the cognitive tasks used in this study. For the Stroop Test, participants were asked to use keys 1-4 to indicated what color the text of a word was. The digit span tests working memory. Participants were asked to repeat a series of numbers backwards. For the FAS, participants had one minute to name as many words that begin with A. The unique feature about my research is executive function predicts how adults use context to judge faces. This study addresses the increase in overt prejudice before and after the presidential election.
Nhi Ngo 2016
Reference Ngo, Nhi. Context Influence in Emotion Perception across the Life-span: Interaction of Perceiver- and Target- Associated Factors. Diss. Northeastern University, 2016. Forscher, Patrick S. et al. “The Motivation to Express Prejudice.” Journal of personality and social psychology 109.5 (2015): 791–812. PMC.
Have Facial Expression Stereotypes and Prejudice Increased since the 2016 Presidential Election? Jade Mimms
Abstract
Our main goal is to compare and contrast facial expression stereotypes and prejudice before and after the 2016 presidential election. In the previous study, White participants (undergraduate students) viewed facial expressions of White and Black faces and were asked to categorize the face as sad, angry, or disgusted. Despite the stereotypical association between Black and angry, both younger adults were more influenced by context when the target was Black, regardless of the target’s emotion. Participants appeared to have low prejudice and motivation to correct for possible stereotypical association between Black and anger by using the “disgusted” label for Black angry faces. Executive functioning predicted how influenced by context younger adults were when the target was Black and angry. We reopened this study because we wanted collect data post-presidential election to see whether overt prejudice has increased after the campaign.
Background
Identifying facial expressions of emotion helps people navigate the diversity of individuals they encounter in their social environments. Sometimes stereotypes of emotional expression helps people understand social partners better, but other times it hinders relationships and increases prejudice. The emotion and the race of the target, the relevance of the context, as well as the perceiver’s inhibition abilities all play a role in determining the magnitude of context effects.
Results & Discussion Race
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
BlackTherm White ometer Non White
15
89.8000
14.99143
3.87077
17
86.4118
14.24368
3.45460
WhiteTher mometer
White
16
84.6875
18.71085
4.67771
Non White
17
80.4706
21.06572
5.10919
Group Statistics N
Race External Internal
Std. Error Mean
White
16
3.2750
0.82583
0.20646
Non White
17
3.0353
0.92800
0.22507
White
16
4.5625
0.51235
0.12809
Non White
17
4.4706
0.63666
0.15441
External Motivation Internal Motivation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Younger
Older
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
3.07
0.87
51
2.81
0.78
51
3.70
0.38
51
3.51
0.39
50
These are preliminary results as we are still in the process of collecting data from young white participants. We found that there was no difference between White and non-White participants on the motivation scale, the feeling thermometers, or the coded thermometer variable. Compared to the previous study, it does appear that white and non-white participants have increased internal motivation to appear nonprejudiced. The literature says that people tend to be internally motivated to respond without prejudice. The problem is that this does not reflect what actually occurs. In the real-world. there are intentional displays of prejudice like hate crimes and hate speech.
Methods
Several measures were used in this study. The main tasks were a fast emotional categorization task and an emotional implicit association test (IAT). Pictures of black and white faces were shown on the screen for extremely short bursts of time and the participants were asked to select which emotion they thought the face was expressing during the fast emotional categorization task. The emotions were disgusted, sad, and angry, and participants were only categorizing two emotions at a time. The emotional IAT had three different rounds, two practice blocks and the actual test. In the practice blocks, participants were shown faces and asked to categorize them as being either black or white. For the second practice block, participants categorized words as meaning either sad, angry, or disgusted (i.e. disgusted or sad, etc.) In the third round, both words and faces were categorized one at a time. The additional measures were a Stroop test, a FAS word fluency test, and the digit span. Participants also completed two questionnaires , one at the beginning of the study and one at the end. In the last questionnaire participants answered demographic questions (age, racial identity, etc.), completed questions , and then asked to rank their feelings towards black people from 0, cold, to 100, warm using a feeling thermometer.
Left: Emotional IAT faces, right: strop test example.
The Stroop test, FAS word fluency test, and digit span were the cognitive tasks used in this study. For the Stroop Test, participants were asked to use keys 1-4 to indicated what color the text of a word was. The digit span tests working memory. Participants were asked to repeat a series of numbers backwards. For the FAS, participants had one minute to name as many words that begin with A. The unique feature about my research is executive function predicts how adults use context to judge faces. This study addresses the increase in overt prejudice before and after the presidential election.
Nhi Ngo 2016
Reference Ngo, Nhi. Context Influence in Emotion Perception across the Life-span: Interaction of Perceiver- and Target- Associated Factors. Diss. Northeastern University, 2016. Forscher, Patrick S. et al. “The Motivation to Express Prejudice.” Journal of personality and social psychology 109.5 (2015): 791–812. PMC.
