The Neuroscience of Stigma and Stereotype Threat Belle Derks, Michael Inzlicht, Sonia Kang To cite this version: Belle Derks, Michael Inzlicht, Sonia Kang. The Neuroscience of Stigma and Stereotype Threat. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2008, 11 (2), pp.163-181. 10.1177/1368430207088036. hal-00571682 HAL Id: hal-00571682 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571682 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2008 Vol 11(2) 163–181 The Neuroscience of Stigma and Stereotype Threat Belle Derks Leiden University Michael Inzlicht and Sonia Kang University of Toronto This article reviews social neuroscience research on the experience of stigma from the target’s perspective. More specifi cally, we discuss several research programs that employ electro- encephalography, event-related potentials, or functional magnetic resonance imaging methods to examine neural correlates of stereotype and social identity threat. We present neuroimaging studies that show brain activation related to the experience of being stereotyped and ERP studies that shed light on the cognitive processes underlying social identity processes. Among these are two projects from our own lab. The fi rst project reveals the important role of the neurocognitive confl ict-detection system in stereotype threat effects, especially as it pertains to stereotype threat ‘spillover’. The second project examines the role of automatic ingroup evaluations as a neural mediator between social identity threats and compensatory ingroup bias. We conclude with a discussion of the benefi ts, limitations, and unique contributions of social neuroscience to our understanding of stigma and social identity threat. keywords EEG, ERP, social identity, social neuroscience, stereotype threat Over the years, methodological and technolo- to important new insights into the cognitive gical advances have allowed social psychologists processes and neural mechanisms underlying to reduce their reliance on explicit self-report intergroup phenomena such as categorization, measures of people’s emotions, attitudes, and prejudice, and stereotyping. For example, the motivations. The movement within the fi eld mechanisms underlying automatic processes has been toward a focus on implicit measure- that were previously difficult or impossible ments, providing for a more accurate and un- to identify can now be studied with neural biased assessment of important psychological phenomena. The recent introduction of methods and technology from cognitive neuro- Author’s note science affords social psychologists yet another Address correspondence to Belle Derks, theoretical advancement; we are now able to Leiden University, Institute for Psychological systematically test predictions related to the Research, Social and Organizational mechanisms underlying social psychological Psychology Unit, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB processes. This merge of social psychology Leiden, the Netherlands and neuroscience, social neuroscience, has led [email: [email protected]] Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) 11:2; 163–181; DOI: 10.1177/1368430207088036 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(2) techniques like functional magnetic resonance threat. We begin by discussing the effects of pre- imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography judice on targets, including stereotype threat (EEG). Neuroscience techniques allow us to effects and the use of coping mechanisms to explore the role of specifi c neural regions and protect social identity. Then, we describe how systems in complex social psychological phe- these phenomena can be studied with social nomena such as person perception and racial neuroscience techniques. Finally, we examine bias, thereby improving our understanding of the limitations and benefi ts of this work and these phenomena by integrating with what is discuss the value of social neuroscience in already known about these specifi c brain regions relation to more traditional measures. Rather from neuroscience research (see Ochsner & than offering a comprehensive analysis of re- Lieberman, 2001, for a primer on social cognitive search on stereotype threat (see Shapiro & neuroscience). In turn, social neuroscience Neuberg, 2007; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, informs the fi eld of cognitive neuroscience as 2002), this article offers a glimpse into recent a whole by enriching the current body of know- neuroscience research emerging in the fi eld of ledge with new insights into the intricacies of stigma, detailing how tools borrowed from complex social behaviors and processes. neuroscience and psychophysiology can in- The past few years in particular have seen form our understanding of the target’s per- an explosion of studies using the social neuro- spective. We begin our discussion by providing science approach. As this Special Issue attests, a selective review of stereotype and social iden- work on stereotyping and prejudice is no ex- tity threat. ception. EEG and fMRI methods, for example, have been used in the area of person percep- Stereotype and social identity threat: tion to study the hypothesized relationship be- A brief review tween automatic and controlled processes (e.g. Bartholow, Dickter, & Sestir, 2006; Cunningham Stereotype threat defi ned et al., 2004). To this point, however, most work Stereotype threat has become one of the most on the social neuroscience of intergroup pro- vigorously explored topics of the past decade cesses has focused on the perpetrator’s point in social psychology, with research on the topic of view, focusing, for example, on the mental greeted with much interest within academic processes and brain regions that are activated psychology and among members of the public when people employ stereotypes to perceive and alike. The original Steele and Aronson (1995) interpret their social world (see for examples article is now considered a modern classic (Fiske, Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones, 2007; 2003), and has been cited well over 600 times1. Bartholow et al., 2006; Cunningham et al., Part of the enthusiasm stems from the fact that 2004; Hart et al., 2000; Ito, Willadsen Jensen, the theory of stereotype threat offers a situ- & Correll, 2007; Phelps et al., 2000; Richeson et ational interpretation for the long-lasting and al., 2003; Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). In contrast, seemingly intractable debate over the source surprisingly little social neuroscience research of group differences in academic and cognitive has focused on the target’s point of view. Given performance. This explanation avoids the nature social neuroscience’s role in advancing research vs. nurture trap, by suggesting that situations on stereotyping and prejudice, it is clear that themselves can bring about group differences neuroscience techniques could also advance when threats are ‘in the air’ (Steele, 1997). theory and research on the target’s perspective. Stereotype threat is a situational predica- That is, social neuroscience has great potential ment where individuals are at risk, by dint in fostering a more comprehensive and inte- of their actions or behaviors, of confi rming grated understanding of what it means and negative stereotypes about their group (Steele how it feels to belong to a stigmatized group. & Aronson, 1995). It is the resulting sense that In this article, we review the existing social one might be judged or treated in terms of a neuroscience research on stigma and stereotype negative stereotype. In their original article, 164 Derks et al. neuroscience of stigma Steele and Aronson (1995) suggested that be- stereotype threat effect to a broad array of groups cause African Americans are well aware of the and domains of activity, both in the real world negative stereotypes impugning their intel- and in the lab. Studies have observed the effect of lectual ability, whenever they are in a situation stereotype threat on performance of women on requiring them to display said ability, they fear tests of political knowledge (McGlone, Aronson, confi rming the stereotype, a process which & Kobrynowicz, 2006), of Latinos (Gonzales, could interfere with optimal performance. In Blanton, & Williams, 2002), and of children of support of their hypotheses, their experiments low socioeconomic status on tests of intelligence indicated that African American college stu- (Croizet & Claire, 1998). However, stereotype dents underperformed when stereotypes about threat does not exclusively affect members of their group became salient, for example, when traditionally devalued or marginalized groups; they took a ‘diagnostic’ test of academic ability indeed, even members of non-stigmatized groups or when they indicated their race on a demo- can experience stereotype threat. Studies have graphic survey prior to taking a test. shown stereotype threat effects with Whites on A speech given by Lawrence Summers, Harvard tests of athletic ability (e.g. Beilock, Jellison, University’s former president, in early 2005 Rydell,