Afraid of one afraid of all: When threat associations spread across face-types

Abstract

Fear can be acquired for objects not inherently associated with threat (e.g. birds), and this threat may generalize from prototypical to peripheral category members (e.g. crows vs. penguins). When categorizing people, pervasive stereotypes link Black men to assumed violence and criminality. Faces with Afrocentric features (prototypical) are more often associated with threat and criminality than non-Afrocentric (peripheral) faces regardless of whether the individual is Black or White. In this study, using a priming paradigm, threat associations related to negative racial stereotypes were tested as a vehicle for spreading fear across face-type categories. Results showed more negative than positive judgments for White face targets but only when the prime was primarily non-Afrocentric (i.e. Eurocentric). Black face targets were judged more negatively than positively regardless of prime. This suggests some cognitive processes related to threat generalizations of objects extend to complex social categories.

Keywords:

• Race/ethnicity
• decision and control mechanisms
• anxiety/fear

Notes

1 All faces were rated by asking participants “Using your own opinion on what a stereotypically Black faces looks like, how stereotypically Black do you perceive this face to be?” using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not all stereotypical, 7 = extremely stereotypical). Thirty one Georgia State University students (female, 25; Black, 20, White, 11) pre-rated the face stimuli. The faces were pulled from the Florida Department of Corrections data base by race category and all faces were forward facing, had short haircuts and were wearing blue jumpsuits.

2 Stereotypicality of faces were as follows: Black/Afrocentric (M =5.45, SD = .32); Black/Non-Afrocentric (M = 3.52, SD = .53); White/Afrocentric (M = 2.71, SD = .30); White/Non-Afrocentric (M = 1.71, SD = .08).

3 Stereotypicality of faces were as follows: Black/Afrocentric (M = 5.77, SD = .38); Black/Non-Afrocentric (M = 3.29, SD = .62); White/Afrocentric (M = 3.48, SD = .16); White/Non-Afrocentric (M = 2.11, SD = .14)

4 SDS score did not provide enough variance to influence the outcomes. The scores by prime group with standard deviations: BA, M= .292, SD, 1.10; BNA. M=.224, SD, 1.18; WA, M=.367, SD, 1.01; WNA, M=.734, SD, 1.33.

5 “Yes” responses were evenly split across Black (51.8%) and White (48.2%) faces.