Neuroethics Journal Club: Neural Correlates of Negative Stereotype

Our everyday perceptions of others
can potentially be biased by cultural stereotypes. However, research has
suggested that an initial, and often negative, stereotype can be downregulated
via a highly connected neural network. While this regulatory process has been studied
under neutral conditions, for the third journal club of the semester
Neuroscience graduate student Kim Lang led a discussion about regulation of
this neural network when White individuals are not under neutral conditions,
but actually primed for negative African American stereotyping.




A recent paper published by Forbes et al. used functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the amygdala, the prefrontal cortex (PFC),
and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), three highly interconnected brain regions
important for stereotyping and bias. Studies have shown that the amygdala,
involved in arousal, is activated immediately when encountering a so-called
out-group member. This first response can be downregulated though if an
individual is given time for non-biased deliberation, and this is reflected by
activation in the PFC. The OFC is the regulator of these two neural regions,
especially if initial negative stereotyping is in conflict with an egalitarian
view. Prior research has shown this amygdala inhibition by the lateral PFC
region with an experiment where White participants were shown Black faces in
either rapid succession (30 ms) or at a slower rate (525 ms). When participants
did not have time to reflect on the faces during the fast exposure speeds,
enhanced amygdala activation was observed reflecting the early arousing
response. During the slow exposure time condition though, amygdala activity was
not enhanced.  Instead, increased activity
was observed in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), which correlates
with decreased amygdala activation (Cunningham et al.). This study suggests that if given enough time, a biased
view reflected in the activation of the amygdala, can be reconsidered.

Adapted from The Jury Expert

The authors of the paper for
journal club discussion (Forbes et al.)
took this previous experiment further and studied the activation of the
amygdala when White participants were exposed to Black faces at either 30 ms or
525 ms in the presence of violent and misogynistic rap (VMR) to create a
situation that is primed for negative African American stereotyping. While
evidence shows that individuals are able to downregulate the initial arousal
and response to stereotypes, researchers hypothesized that if stereotypical or
suggestive music were playing, then individuals would be less likely to downregulate
the response even if given ample time to consider the situation. In other words,
during the slow showing of Black faces in the presence of VMR, White
participants would show a prolonged amygdala response instead of a downregulation.  “Straight Outta Compton”
by NWA was rated high by participants and chosen as the song to represent Black
American stereotyping in the study. To prime for negative stereotyping, but not
African American stereotyping, participants were also asked to rate a death
metal (DM) song, since this genre of music is typically associated with White
American culture. “Only
One” by Slipknot was chosen based on a similarity in tempo and violent
references to “Straight Outta Compton.” Participants were then shown
expressionless Black and White male faces at either the fast (30 ms) or the
slow (525 ms) rate while listening to VMR, DM, or no music (NM) while the fMRI
scans were completed. After the scanning, participants were asked general
questions regarding their feelings toward the song, whether they owned any of
the songs (no participants did), and how they rated themselves on the Modern
Racism Scale³ and the Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice
Scale⁴.




Based on the responses to the two
rating systems, participants reported being non-prejudiced and motivated to
regulate their biases, and the fMRI scans of the amygdala during the slow scan
with NM reflected this. Consistent with previous work (Cunningham et al.), when participants were exposed
to the faces at the fast rate, amygdala activation was observed and during the
slow speed, OFC and DLPFC activation was recorded. When participants were
exposed to Black and White faces at the fast speed in the presence of DM, no
activation at the amygdala, OFC, or the DLPFC was observed. Similar to NM, at
the slow speed during DM, activation of the OFC and DLPFC regions was still
greater when seeing the Black faces compared to White faces, suggesting that
participants were still engaging in a deeper processing of the Black faces. The
focus of the hypothesis was the activation of brain regions in participants
when VMR was playing. As predicted, when Black faces were displayed during the
fast exposure, greater amygdala activation was observed compared to White faces.
During the slow speed, participants still showed higher amygdala activity when
seeing Black faces compared to White faces, but also increased OFC and DLPFC
activation.




When comparing results across the
two types of music and the context with no music, greater amygdala activation
was seen during the fast and slow exposures for VMR than for NM and DM. As
expected, greater DLPFC activity was seen for the fast and slow exposures for
NM and DM compared to VMR. Interestingly, when exposed to the fast speed,
greater OFC activation was seen for VMR compared to NM and DM. However, during
the slow speed exposure, the opposite was observed, and greater OFC activity
was seen for NM and DM compared to VMR. These findings suggest that not only is
there a continuum of neural processing during slow and fast social cognitive
assessments, but the lack of downregulation in the amygdala during the fast and
slow speed exposure for VMR is evidence that although White individuals can control
an initial, arousing reaction to a Black individual in a neutral context, this
is more difficult when the situation lends itself to negative stereotyping. The
authors offer two possible interpretations for this lack of downregulation in
the VMR scenario. Either exposure to the VMR causes a prolonged amygdala
response that is cognitively taxing on other neural regions, making it
difficult to control a response or the VMR justifies the initial response and
reinforces that stereotype.

From Forbes et al.

Whether a situation that is primed
for negative stereotyping makes deliberation more cognitively taxing or
justifies an initial stereotype, brain activation isn’t predictive for
behavioral responses since similar activation patterns in individuals do not
always give rise to similar behaviors. Although this study was more
representative of everyday circumstances than the previous study with neutral
conditions, it would be interesting to measure the neural activity of
individuals when encountering situations that prime for negative
stereotypes.  Even if there is typically
a lack of amygdala downregulation, does this mean that individuals still
behaviorally restrain themselves?




A second experiment that was
discussed during journal club as a potential follow-up to this paper would be
to repeat the fast and slow exposures of Black faces during the three different
musical contexts, but with Black participants instead of White participants.
“Straight Outta Compton” is not subtle, but instead overtly violent and
misogynistic, and it could be that people
of all races would have an arousing response in the amygdala that would be
difficult to regulate strictly due to the nature of the lyrics – not because
the song stereotypes African American culture. Of course it is a matter of
opinion whether “Only One” really mimics “Straight Outta Compton,” or whether
“Straight Outta Compton” is truly violent and misogynistic, so the experiments
could be repeated with more and different songs to help confirm the hypothesis
that “when something as subtle as a rap song is played in the background,”
White individuals negatively stereotype Black Americans (Forbes et al.).




More research will most likely be
done in the future, but these results do have larger implications to consider for
society today. Knowing that even in tolerant individuals with an egalitarian
viewpoint the amygdala is activated and can be difficult to downregulate, does
this mean that neural activation would justify racial violence, especially in a
court case? Should defense attorneys ever be able to claim that this activity
in a context that primes for negative stereotyping is a valid defense for a
violent or egregious crime against an out-group member? As neuroscience
research becomes more sophisticated, more debates will follow about where we
draw the line for allowing scientific research as evidence in the courtroom and
when we must hold the individual solely responsible. In the meantime, hopefully
when encountering an out-group member, we will consider that negative
stereotypical contexts may prime us for negative stereotyping due to a complex
neural interaction that is somewhat out of our control. If we are conscious
that we have difficulties mediating initial responses, perhaps more conscious tolerance
and reflection could follow a circumstance where an initial judgment seems
justified based on contextual cues.






References

1. 
   Forbes, C.E., Cox, C.L., Schmader, T., Ryan, L.
   (2011). Negative stereotype activation alters interaction between neural
   correlates of arousal, inhibition and cognitive control. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 771.
   




2. 
   Cunningham,
   W.A., Johnson, M.K., Raye, C.L., Gatenby, J.C., Gore, J.C., Banaji, M.R.
   (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of Black and White faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806–13.
   




3. 
   McConahay,
   J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In:
   Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., editors. Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (pp. 91–125). Orlando,
   FL: Academic Press.
   




4. 
   Plant,
   E.A., Devine, P.G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without
   prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–32. 

Want to cite this post?



Strong, K. (2013). Neuroethics Journal Club: Neural Correlates of Negative Stereotype. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/12/neuroethics-journal-club-neural.html

Now Available! Neuroethics Journal Club Video Archives on YouTube

The Neuroethics Journal Club videos are now available on YouTube. Watch each discussion to learn about a variety of neuroethics issues, from treatments for pedophilia to neural plasticity in mice. For each video, one presenter introduced the journal topic and opened discussion to the audience. 

Neuroethics Journal Club: The Sexed Brain

The Sexed Brain: Between Science and Ideology

Catherine Vidal, Neuroethics, 2012 

Abstract: Despite tremendous advances in neuroscience, the topic “brain, sex and gender” remains a matter of misleading interpretations, that go well beyond the bounds of science. In the 19th century, the difference in brain sizes was a major argument to explain the hierarchy between men and women, and was supposed to reflect innate differences in mental capacity. Nowadays, our understanding of the human brain has progressed dramatically with the demonstration of cerebral plasticity. The new brain imaging techniques have revealed the role of the environment in continually re-shaping our brain all along our lifetimes as it goes through new experiences and acquires new knowledge. However, the idea that biology is a major determining factor for cognition and behavioral gender differentiation, is still very much alive. The media are far from being the only guilty party. Some scientific circles actively promote the idea of an innate origin of a gender difference in mental capacities. Experimental data from brain imaging, cognitive tests or genetics are often distorted to serve deterministic ideas. Such abuse of “scientific discourses” have to be counteracted by effective communication of clear and unbiased information to the citizens. This paper presents a critical analysis of selected examples which emphasize sex differences in three fields e.g. skills in language and mathematics, testosterone and financial risk-taking behavior, moral cognition. To shed light on the data and the methods used in some papers, we can now—with today’s knowledge on cerebral plasticity—challenge even more strongly, many false interpretations. Our goal here is double: we want to provide evidence against archaic beliefs about the biological determinism of sex differences but also promote a positive image of scientific research.

Neuroethics Journal Club: Pedophilia

Real-time functional magnetic imaging—brain–computer interface and virtual reality: Promising tools for the treatment of pedophilia 

Renaud et al, 2011

 

Abstract: This chapter proposes a prospective view on using a real-time functional magnetic imaging (rt-fMRI) brain-computer interface (BCI) application as a new treatment for pedophilia. Neurofeedback mediated by interactive virtual stimuli is presented as the key process in this new BCI application. Results on the diagnostic discriminant power of virtual characters depicting sexual stimuli relevant to pedophilia are given. Finally, practical and ethical implications are briefly addressed.

Neuroethics Journal Club: Social Pain 

The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain 

Eisenberger, 2011 

Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract: Experiences of social rejection, exclusion or loss are generally considered to be some of the most 'painful' experiences that we endure. Indeed, many of us go to great lengths to avoid situations that may engender these experiences (such as public speaking). Why is it that these negative social experiences have such a profound effect on our emotional well-being? Emerging evidence suggests that experiences of social pain--the painful feelings associated with social disconnection--rely on some of the same neurobiological substrates that underlie experiences of physical pain. Understanding the ways in which physical and social pain overlap may provide new insights into the surprising relationship between these two types of experiences.

Neuroethics Journal Club: Plasticity and Learning 

Forebrain Engraftment by Human Glial Progenitor Cells Enhances Synaptic Plasticity and Learning in Adult Mice 

Han et al, 2013 Cell Stem Cell

Abstract: Human astrocytes are larger and more complex than those of infraprimate mammals, suggesting that their role in neural processing has expanded with evolution. To assess the cell-autonomous and species-selective properties of human glia, we engrafted human glial progenitor cells (GPCs) into neonatal immunodeficient mice. Upon maturation, the recipient brains exhibited large numbers and high proportions of both human glial progenitors and astrocytes. The engrafted human glia were gap-junction-coupled to host astroglia, yet retained the size and pleomorphism of hominid astroglia, and propagated Ca²⁺ signals 3-fold faster than their hosts. Long-term potentiation (LTP) was sharply enhanced in the human glial chimeric mice, as was their learning, as assessed by Barnes maze navigation, object-location memory, and both contextual and tone fear conditioning. Mice allografted with murine GPCs showed no enhancement of either LTP or learning. These findings indicate that human glia differentially enhance both activity-dependent plasticity and learning in mice.

Stay tuned for more Neuroethics Journal Club videos next year. Also, to get daily updates about emerging ideas in neuroethics, follow Emory Neuroethics on Facebook here and Twitter here.

Neuroethics journal club: Right-brained, wrongly reasoned

Who’d believe there’s a liberal professor (he freely acknowledges he belongs to this group) that’s willing to admit that conservatives might be right about something? Don't get too excited; he also thinks the reasoning that many conservatives use to decide what’s right is all wrong. What’s more, he thinks that neuroscience proves the way that many conservatives reason is wrong. The professor, Dr. John Banja, led a discussion of one of his articles last Wednesday at the second meeting of the Neuroethics Journal Club hosted by the Neuroethics Program at the Emory Center for Ethics.



I had this great idea to summarize Dr. Banja's message with music videos. It turned out to be harder than I thought (but I'm still peppering this post with pop)--there is not one song that has the words "virtue essentialism" in the title, although those words are in the title of Dr. Banja’s article: “Virtue Essentialism, Prototypes, and the Moral Conservative Opposition to Enhancement Technologies: A Neuroethical Critique”. Banja describes virtue essentialism as a type of argument often employed by scholars like Leon Kass, Gilbert Meilander, and Michael Sandel. According to Banja, there are three characteristics of “virtue essentialist” arguments: (1) they invoke concepts like “dignity” as if those concepts have an essence--i.e., definition--that everyone agrees upon, (2) they adopt absolutist positions, because their positions supposedly are based on clearly-defined concepts and, (3) they attack anything that smacks of moral relativism.



You might wonder why you should be worried about this virtue essentialism that Dr. Banja describes. Consider this: virtue essentialist arguments make up the backbone of many of the publications authored by President George W. Bush's President's Council on Bioethics (PCB). W announced he was creating the PCB back in 2001, during the same speech in which he announced he would only allow embryonic stem cell research to be carried out on cell lines already in existence. Bush promised that the council would "consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation," and appointed Leon Kass to be the head of the council.



You might still be wondering why this is relevant in today’s political atmosphere. We talked about that at the journal club, too. First I’ll explain how we got there. Banja is not alone in his concern about the arguments made by Kass and others. Ruth Macklin, writing in 2006, dissected just the sort of reasoning--or lack thereof--that Banja wants to attack, all neuroethics style. According to Macklin, issues in bioethics were not black nor white before these self-styled "conservatives" came along; she explicitly links their appearance to the polarized political climate of the Bush regime during which you were either one of us or one of them. Macklin also observes that Kass and others who call themselves "conservatives" in bioethics are characterized largely by being against anything "artificial: artifical reproduction, artificial life extension, artificial intelligence and artificial life, and, in general, making ourselves 'artificially better'."



Didn't I promise there would be rock? Here's David Byrne on "making ourselves 'artifically better'":

Byrne continues the tradition of rockers confounding us all by writing from a perspective that seems a little--gulp--conservative (cf., Graham Parker's You Can't Be Too Strong.)



What's wrong with virtue essentialism and why do we need neuroscience to figure it out? Banja began by discussing "essentialism," which as you might guess is the view that everything has an essence. There is something about Lady Gaga that is essentially Lady Gaga. You might say she was "born this way" (bad joke, sorry). Essentialism, explained Dr. Banja, has been around at least since the time of Plato, who captured it essence (again, sorry) in the Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks what the essence of “holiness” or “piety” is. Socrates runs into Euthyphro down at the courthouse and, thinking that it might help him defend himself in his upcoming court case, asks Euthyphro for a definition of “piety”. As Dr. Banja emphasized, the best Euthyphro can do is come up with some examples. He fails to define it in a way that Socrates can’t deconstruct. Here’s the moral of the story: if it were true that concepts like "holy" had some essence, then we could somehow discern that essence and know when our actions were holy (or "fair" or "just", etc.).



Then Wittgenstein came along and dared to suggest that we might not classify things based on their essence that our god-given reason is supposed to somehow have access to. Instead, he suggested we categorize things based on "family resemblances"--things that they have in common. Wittgenstein's insights spelled the beginning of the end for essentialism. He was implying that there might not be any source of morals outside of humanity. Maybe there's no right or wrong outside of what we say is right or wrong.



Song time again! Perhaps Stereolab can use their perfect pop powers to help us understand the source of the morals that form the backbone of a society.



The once-firm moral foundation that Wittgenstein started to undermine really crumbled once neuroscience and psychology came into the picture, said Dr. Banja. In the 70s, psychologists like Eleanor Rosch began to test how people categorize. These experiments gave rise to prototype theory, a theory that holds that we are able to classify things not because our reason has access to their essence, but because our brains build prototypes. Such prototypes are the “statistical central tendency of a body of concrete exemplars,” to recycle Dr. Banja’s quote from philosopher Andy Clark. In other words, we supposedly classify things by keeping a running average for every category and by measuring the distance of any item we are classifying from the average. I would show you an image from a study Dr. Banja described so that we could understand prototype theory, but in the spirit of this semi-musical post, I think I have to link to songs that neuroscience grad student Laura Mariani mentioned at the journal club. This music, composed by Komar & Molamid and David Soldier, is based on the results of an on-line survey. Click on the links to hear the “prototypes” of what people consider to be the "most wanted song" and "most unwanted song".



Prototype theory, concluded Dr.Banja, presents some problems for virtue essentialist arguments as defined above. It holds that there can be no completely objective definition of concepts like "dignity". Hence, anyone who argues against something like cognitive enhancement because they feel it degrades dignity will have to accept that their idea of what dignity means might not be agreed upon by everyone. This is a good result. It replaces the moral majority with a democratic process of ethics.


In closing, we discussed why virtue essentialism seems to work, even if it is flawed. Dr. Banja recalled the points he made at the end of his article: it works because it appeals to people. It plays their heartstrings. The excesses of the Bush administration showed that Republicans had learned how to hit the right notes to get all the votes, according to Dr. Banja. My labmate Lukas Hoffman countered that you could say the same thing about the Democrats. With the Tea Party on one hand and Occupy Wall Street on the other, it’s certain that people are feeling like something is wrong more and more, and believing that they know what that is. How can they be reminded that everything might not be what it seems? Education is key, offered MD/PhD student Orion Kiefer. And he's right. Anyone who has a sound grasp of science will understand that theories can sometimes be overturned, even theories about right and wrong, and that there’s always room for debate.



Next month's meeting of the journal club will take place November 16th from 1-2pm. You can RSVP by sending an e-mail to neuroethics@emory.edu. Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, director of Emory's Center for Ethics, will facilitate a discussion on emerging technologies and lie detection.



-- David Nicholson

Neuroscience Graduate Student (Sober Lab)



I leave you with one last tune to inculcate you against the siren song of anybody that would make appeals to your gut feelings about what’s right and what’s wrong.





Want to cite this post?


Nicholson, D. (2011). Neuroethics journal club: Right-brained, wrongly reasoned. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2011/10/neuroethics-journal-club-right-brained.html