Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain · Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain: Harnessing the Universal in Social Cognition Susan T. Fiske Department of Psychology

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

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS.

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)


Hi Warmth Ambivalence Pure favoritism

Lo Warmth Pure antipathy Ambivalence

Stereotype Content ModelLo Competence Hi Competence

Hi Warmth

Lo Warmth poor, welfare, homelessDisgust


Hi Warmth ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride



Hi Warmth older, disabled, retardedPity

ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride



Hi Warmth older, disabled, retardedPity

ingroup, allies, reference groupsPride


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

U.S. Immigrants (Lee &Fiske, IJIR, 2006)

Prejudices


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

German Data (Eckes, 2002)

American Students: 1932-2007(Bergsiecker, Leslie, Constantine, & Fiske, under review)

1932 2007

Italian Fascists (Durante, Volpato, & Fiske, EJSP, 2009)


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


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


Prejudices


Female Subtypes (Eckes, 2002)

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)

Sample Stimuli (Cikara et al.)

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

HS Correlation within mPFC

mPFCBA 1033 voxels

HS & = .38

HS & = -.59

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


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

Thank you

Documents

Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain · Inclusive Leadership, Prejudice, and the Brain: Harnessing the Universal in Social Cognition Susan T. Fiske Department of Psychology