Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population

Research output: Contribution to conferencePoster

Abstract

Attentional biases are driven by type of stimulus in our environment (faces capture our attention in preference to non face items, e.g. Ro, Russel & Lavie, 2001), and motivation to seek out specific stimuli (e.g. spider images will capture attention more readily in those with arachnophobia, e.g. Ohman, Flykt & Esteves, 2001). Hence, attentional biases have been used as a behavioural measure of positive or negative attitudes to stimuli in the environment. The finding that the faces of Black people capture attention in a sample of White U.S. participants (Trawalter, Todd, Baird & Richeson, 2008) has been interpreted as Black faces being a threat stimulus, which is an interpretation in accord with other experimental evidence on the stigmatized representation of Black people as threatening (e.g. in a simulated first person shooter task, White participants shoot both armed and unarmed Black targets more frequently and more quickly than White targets, e.g. Correll, Urland and Ito, 2006). Al-Janabi, MacLeod and Rhodes (2012) suggest that attentional bias to Black faces may not represent threat but rather novelty of the stimulus, supported by the finding that an attentional bias was found towards faces of Asian females, where these faces had not been rated as more threatening than White faces. However, as noted as a possibility by these authors and as demonstrated by Donders, Correll and Wittenbrink (2008), implicit measures of danger can predict attentional bias towards Black faces. Implicit attitudes are often poorly correlated with conscious attitudes and are thought to stem from simple exposure to stereotyped information in the environment without being necessarily consciously endorsed. Hence, there is still uncertainty as to whether implicit bias as opposed to explicit bias better underpins attentional bias to other race faces.

Conference

ConferenceAssociation for Psychological Science Annual Convention
CountryUnited States
CitySan Francisco
Period24/05/1827/05/18

Fingerprint

Population
Spiders
Attentional Bias
Uncertainty
Motivation

Keywords

  • face recognition
  • attention
  • biases
  • implicit

Cite this

Kelly, S. W., Finnegan, E., & Kalla, K. K. (2018). Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population. Poster session presented at Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, United States.
Kelly, Steve W. ; Finnegan, Eimear ; Kalla, Katrin K. / Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population. Poster session presented at Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, United States.1 p.
@conference{6d60ab2b3bd44ed1baad54008c457c03,
title = "Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population",
abstract = "Attentional biases are driven by type of stimulus in our environment (faces capture our attention in preference to non face items, e.g. Ro, Russel & Lavie, 2001), and motivation to seek out specific stimuli (e.g. spider images will capture attention more readily in those with arachnophobia, e.g. Ohman, Flykt & Esteves, 2001). Hence, attentional biases have been used as a behavioural measure of positive or negative attitudes to stimuli in the environment. The finding that the faces of Black people capture attention in a sample of White U.S. participants (Trawalter, Todd, Baird & Richeson, 2008) has been interpreted as Black faces being a threat stimulus, which is an interpretation in accord with other experimental evidence on the stigmatized representation of Black people as threatening (e.g. in a simulated first person shooter task, White participants shoot both armed and unarmed Black targets more frequently and more quickly than White targets, e.g. Correll, Urland and Ito, 2006). Al-Janabi, MacLeod and Rhodes (2012) suggest that attentional bias to Black faces may not represent threat but rather novelty of the stimulus, supported by the finding that an attentional bias was found towards faces of Asian females, where these faces had not been rated as more threatening than White faces. However, as noted as a possibility by these authors and as demonstrated by Donders, Correll and Wittenbrink (2008), implicit measures of danger can predict attentional bias towards Black faces. Implicit attitudes are often poorly correlated with conscious attitudes and are thought to stem from simple exposure to stereotyped information in the environment without being necessarily consciously endorsed. Hence, there is still uncertainty as to whether implicit bias as opposed to explicit bias better underpins attentional bias to other race faces.",
keywords = "face recognition, attention, biases, implicit",
author = "Kelly, {Steve W.} and Eimear Finnegan and Kalla, {Katrin K.}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "26",
language = "English",
note = "Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention ; Conference date: 24-05-2018 Through 27-05-2018",

}

Kelly, SW, Finnegan, E & Kalla, KK 2018, 'Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population' Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, United States, 24/05/18 - 27/05/18, .

Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population. / Kelly, Steve W.; Finnegan, Eimear; Kalla, Katrin K.

2018. Poster session presented at Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePoster

TY - CONF

T1 - Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population

AU - Kelly, Steve W.

AU - Finnegan, Eimear

AU - Kalla, Katrin K.

PY - 2018/5/26

Y1 - 2018/5/26

N2 - Attentional biases are driven by type of stimulus in our environment (faces capture our attention in preference to non face items, e.g. Ro, Russel & Lavie, 2001), and motivation to seek out specific stimuli (e.g. spider images will capture attention more readily in those with arachnophobia, e.g. Ohman, Flykt & Esteves, 2001). Hence, attentional biases have been used as a behavioural measure of positive or negative attitudes to stimuli in the environment. The finding that the faces of Black people capture attention in a sample of White U.S. participants (Trawalter, Todd, Baird & Richeson, 2008) has been interpreted as Black faces being a threat stimulus, which is an interpretation in accord with other experimental evidence on the stigmatized representation of Black people as threatening (e.g. in a simulated first person shooter task, White participants shoot both armed and unarmed Black targets more frequently and more quickly than White targets, e.g. Correll, Urland and Ito, 2006). Al-Janabi, MacLeod and Rhodes (2012) suggest that attentional bias to Black faces may not represent threat but rather novelty of the stimulus, supported by the finding that an attentional bias was found towards faces of Asian females, where these faces had not been rated as more threatening than White faces. However, as noted as a possibility by these authors and as demonstrated by Donders, Correll and Wittenbrink (2008), implicit measures of danger can predict attentional bias towards Black faces. Implicit attitudes are often poorly correlated with conscious attitudes and are thought to stem from simple exposure to stereotyped information in the environment without being necessarily consciously endorsed. Hence, there is still uncertainty as to whether implicit bias as opposed to explicit bias better underpins attentional bias to other race faces.

AB - Attentional biases are driven by type of stimulus in our environment (faces capture our attention in preference to non face items, e.g. Ro, Russel & Lavie, 2001), and motivation to seek out specific stimuli (e.g. spider images will capture attention more readily in those with arachnophobia, e.g. Ohman, Flykt & Esteves, 2001). Hence, attentional biases have been used as a behavioural measure of positive or negative attitudes to stimuli in the environment. The finding that the faces of Black people capture attention in a sample of White U.S. participants (Trawalter, Todd, Baird & Richeson, 2008) has been interpreted as Black faces being a threat stimulus, which is an interpretation in accord with other experimental evidence on the stigmatized representation of Black people as threatening (e.g. in a simulated first person shooter task, White participants shoot both armed and unarmed Black targets more frequently and more quickly than White targets, e.g. Correll, Urland and Ito, 2006). Al-Janabi, MacLeod and Rhodes (2012) suggest that attentional bias to Black faces may not represent threat but rather novelty of the stimulus, supported by the finding that an attentional bias was found towards faces of Asian females, where these faces had not been rated as more threatening than White faces. However, as noted as a possibility by these authors and as demonstrated by Donders, Correll and Wittenbrink (2008), implicit measures of danger can predict attentional bias towards Black faces. Implicit attitudes are often poorly correlated with conscious attitudes and are thought to stem from simple exposure to stereotyped information in the environment without being necessarily consciously endorsed. Hence, there is still uncertainty as to whether implicit bias as opposed to explicit bias better underpins attentional bias to other race faces.

KW - face recognition

KW - attention

KW - biases

KW - implicit

M3 - Poster

ER -

Kelly SW, Finnegan E, Kalla KK. Implicit rather than explicit threat predicts attentional bias towards Black but not Asian faces in a White undergraduate population. 2018. Poster session presented at Association for Psychological Science Annual Convention, San Francisco, United States.