Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain - Columbia … · · 2015-09-09Predict distinct...
Transcript of Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain - Columbia … · · 2015-09-09Predict distinct...
Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain:
Harnessing the Universal in Social Cognition
Susan T. FiskeDepartment of Psychology
Princeton University
Only 2 Kinds of People
Friend or foe? With us or against?Part of the problem or the solutionWarm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere
OK, Maybe 4 Kinds of People
Friend or foe?Warm, friendly, trustworthy, sincere
Able or unable?Competent, able, skillful, capable
Warmth x competence 4 clusters
SCM Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Distinct Types
Friend or foe? = WarmthAble or unable? = CompetenceStereotype Content Model (SCM)
Warmth x competence
Stereotype Content Model(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)
Lo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth Pure favoritism
Lo Warmth Pure antipathy
Stereotype Content Model(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Advances, 2008; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, TiCS, 2007; Fiske et al., JSI,1999, JPSP, 2002)
Lo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth Ambivalence Pure favoritism
Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Ambivalence
Stereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth
Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust
Stereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride
Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust
Stereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth older, disabled, retardedPity
ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride
Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust
Stereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth older, disabled, retardedPity
ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride
Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust
Jews, Asians, rich, professionalsEnvy
SCM Studies
[American] society’s opinions of groupsCommon groups nominatedRate on
Warmth (warm, friendly, sincere)Competence (competent, skillful, capable)Social structureEmotionsBehavior
SCM: US Representative Sample (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, JPSP, 2007)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Competence
War
mth
Americans
Elderly
Disabled
Christians
British
Black professionals
Arabs
Asians
Rich
Poor blacks
Middle-class
Jews
Irish
Housewives
Homeless
Feminists
Retarded
Whites
WelfareTurks
PITY
DISGUST
PRIDE
ENVY
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mind
Status → competenceCompetition → (low) warmth
Universal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Social Context → Group Stereotype(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)
Correlations Competence Warmth
Status .77 (.55 to .87) .12
Competition
Social Context → Group Stereotype(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)
Correlations Competence Warmth
Status .77 (.55 to .87) .12
Competition .05 -.25 (.08 to -.48)
From US, EU, Latino, & Asian samples
Social Context → Group Stereotype(Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009)
Status Competition Competence Warmth
High High
High Low
Low High
Low Low
Social Context → Group Stereotype(Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, GPIR, 2009)
Status Competition Competence Warmth
High High 4.58 3.47
High Low 4.83 4.13
Low High 2.80 3.35
Low Low 3.21 3.84
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mind
Status → competenceCompetition → (low) warmth
Universal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Italian Fascists (Durante, Volpato, & Fiske, EJSP, 2009)
Lo Competence Hi Competence
Hi Warmth ItaliansAryans
Lo Warmth BlacksHalf castes
JewsEnglish
SCM: Universal or Culture-Bound? (Cuddy, Fiske, Kwan, Glick, et al., BJSP, 2009)
Warmth x competence mapCollective warmth (harmony) > (individual) competence?
Many groups mixedResult of multi-cultural, egalitarian values?Unnecessary in homogeneous, hierarchical cultures?
Ingroup favoritism → outgroup derogationNo ingroup love prejudice ???
SCM: Japanese data (Cuddy et al., 2009)
Professionals
Full members
Civil servants
Japanese
Men
Entertainers
My co.
Family
Office wrkrs
WomenMy clubs
Children
Elderly
Odd-jobbers
Disabled
Poor
Homeless
Friends
Hometown
My univ.
Students
War
mth
Competence
High
Low
Low High
HHC-LLW
HC-LW
LC-HW
LC-LW1
LC-LW2
SCM: Hong Kong data(Cuddy et al., 2009)
A d u lts
B lu e -c o lla r
C h ild re n
C h in e s e
C h r is t ia n s
E ld e r lyF o re ig n e rs
H Klo c a ls
Im m ig ra n ts
J a n ito rs
M a in la in d e rs
M a r r ie d
M e n
M e n ta l ly i l l
P a k is ta n i
F ilip in o m a id sP o o r
P ro fe s s io n a ls
R ic h
S in g le s
S tu d e n ts
C o lle g e g ra d s
U n e m p lo y e d
W h ite -c o lla r
W o m e nA s ia n s
Y o u th s
War
mth
C o m p e te n c e H ig h
H ig h
L o w
L o w
L C -H W
L C -L W
M C -M W
H C -L W
SCM: South Korean data(Cuddy et al., 2009)
B lu e -c o lla rB u d d h is ts
C h ild re n
S tu d e n ts
E ld e r ly
E m p lo y e rs
H o u s e w iv e s
E m p lo y e e s
I lle g a lim m ig ra n ts
In te lle c tu a ls
J u n io r h ig h
M id d le c la s s
M e n
M e rc h a n ts
P ro te s ta n ts
P ro fe s s io n a lsP o o r
P u b licfu n c t io n a r ie s
R ic h
T e a c h e rs
U n e m p lo y e d
W o m e n
M in is te rs
C o m p e te n c e
War
mth
L o w
H C -L W 2
H C -L W 1
L C -H W
L C -L W
L o w H ig h
H ig h
Low
Ingroup Favoritism (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Adv in Exptl Soc Psy, 2008)
Sample Positivity
Western (2 U.S., Belgium) .29 - .49
Asian (Japan, Hong Kong, S. Korea) .02 - .18
Positivity averages across warmth & competence, which show same patterns.
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across culture
But outgroup prejudices without ingroup favoritismHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Intergroup Perception → Person Perception(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)
Individual competition & status →individual warmth & competence
Methods
Participants: Princeton Undergrads (n=46) Cover: National Impression Formation Study on how synthesize info from different sources
Interact & form impression of another student Background (status)“Subliminal” info Game (competition)Rate warmth & competence
2 (status) x 2 (competition)
Competition Perceived WarmthWarmth(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Competitive Condition Non-CompetitiveCondition
War
mth
Rat
ings
(Sca
le: 1
-9)
Status Perceived Competence(Russell & Fiske, EJSP, 2008)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
High Status Target Low Status Target
Com
pete
nce
Rat
ing
(1-9
)
Status Competenceon Intelligence Index (SAT, GPA)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
1
Inte
llige
nce
Inde
x (S
AT
& G
PA)
High StatusLow Status
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Hypotheses (Cikara, Eberhardt, & Fiske, under review)
For heterosexual men, sexualized women have instrumental value, so they will:
Recognize bodies of sexualized womenNot faces
Activate neural tool-use networkCorrelated with recognition
Deactivate social cognition networkCorrelated with hostile sexism
Participants & Design (Cikara et al.)
• 21 heterosexual male students
Independent variables:• 2 (bikini/clothed) X 2 (female/male target)
Dependent variables:• BOLD response• Surprise face & body recognition• Hostile Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996)
Recognition Test: Bodies
Fgender(1,20) = 17.78, p < .001, ηp2 = .47; Fclothing(1,20) = 11.33, p < .005, ηp
2 = .36
Thalamus (often related to goal-directed behavior) & d’ for Sexualized Women
• Left thalamus/pulvinar nucleus correlates with • d’ for sexualized female bodies:• r(19) = .42, p < .05
First v. Third Person Verb IAT
First Person Verbsusepush pullsqueezeturn fold grasp
Third Person Verbsusespushes pullssqueezesturns foldsgrasps
t(9)= 1.39, p = ns
Female Participants
IAT Results
t(15) = -2.22, p < .05, ηp2 = .25
Male Participants grasp
grasps
grasps
grasp
Hostile Sexism & Whole Brain: Deactivation of Social Cognition Network
William’s test t(19) = 2.9, p < .005, one-tailed
Mitchell, 2008
Sexualized Female Bodies (Cikara et al., under review)
Remembered bestCorrelated with thalamus activation
~ Motor-memory relationshipAssociated with first-person actionsSexism de-activates mPFC
Social cogntion network
Possible neural signatures for unique prejudices
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brain
But depends on social goalsPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
Prejudices
Come in distinct typesFrom ideas of society & stereotypes in mindUniversal across cultureHappen for individualsIn distinct regions of brainPredict distinct patterns of discrimination
SCM: US Representative Sample(Cuddy et al., JPSP, 2007)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Competence
War
mth
Americans
Elderly
Disabled
Christians
British
Black professionals
Arabs
Asians
Rich
Poor blacks
Middle-class
Jews
Irish
Housewives
Homeless
Feminists
Retarded
Whites
WelfareTurks
PITY
DISGUST
PRIDE
ENVY
exclude, demean
cooperate, associate
attack, fight
help, protect
Predicting Discrimination: US Survey(Cuddy et al., JPSP, 2007)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Active Facilitation Active Harm Passive Facilitation Passive Harm
Behavior Orientation
Cha
nge in A
dj R
Squ
are
stereotypes boostemotions boost
Overall Stereotype Content Model
Stereotypes(Warmth, Competence)
Emotions(Disgust, Pity,Envy, Pride)
Behavior(Active,PassiveHelp &Harm)
Social Structure(Competition, Status)
Implications
Not all biases are equivalentMost stereotypes are ambivalentMost prejudices create mixed emotionsMost discrimination includes both help & harm
People don’t know thisAutomatic = unconsciousAmbiguous = hard to detectAmbivalent = mixed
Monitor overall patterns
U.S. Collaborators
Tiane Lee, Ann Marie Russell, Mina Cikara, Hilary Bergsiecker, Princeton UniversityLasana Harris, New York UniversityAmy Cuddy, Harvard Business SchoolCara Talaska, Eastern Michigan UniversityPeter Caprariello, University of Rochester Virginia Kwan, Alex Todorov, Princeton UniversityPeter Glick, Lawrence UniversityJennifer Eberhardt, Stanford University Shelly Chaiken, Berkeley CA
International CollaboratorsBritain: J. OldmeadowBelgium: S. Demoulin, J-Ph. Leyens, V. YzerbytBulgaria: K. Petkova & V. TodorovChina: V. Kwan & M. BondCosta Rica: V. Smith-Castro & R. PerezFrance: J-C. CroizetGermany: R. ZieglerIsrael: N. RouhanaItaly: F. Durante, D. Capozza, C. Volpato Japan: M. Yamamoto & T. T. HtunKorea: H-J. KimNetherlands: E. Sleebos & N. EllemersNorway: J. PerryPortugal: J. ValaSouth Africa: A. AkandeSpain: R. Rodriguez Bailon, E. Morales, & M. Moya Wales: G. Maio