Biased Visual Attention to Out-Group Members' Skin Tone Does Not Lead to Discriminatory Behavior

According to the racial phenotype theory, the extent to which members resemble or depart from the physical prototype of a particular race will determine how strongly the perceiver associates them with preconceived racial stereotypes. For Blacks, skin color was predicted to be a primary feature attended to and those with dark skin were more negatively stereotyped. The current study aimed to explicitly measure visual attention during judgment of faces through the use of eye-tracking. Past methodologies measuring the attention to skin tone and its relationship to stereotype judgment were not directly measured. The study used a mixed model design: Label (perpetrator/victim) x Trial (24) with skin tone (dark, medium, light) embedded within trials. Twenty-eight White participants were instructed to find a crime target (perpetrator or victim) from a fictitious crime scene by selecting a face from an array of three faces ranging in skin tone. Visual attention and selection of faces were recorded. Results showed an interaction between tone and label. Dark and medium faces were attended to more often than light faces in the perpetrator condition. In the victim condition, they are attended to less than light faces. A tone effect was also seen, dark faces were frequently looked at first. Despite biased visual attention, preference for a particular tone was not found. Racial phenotype bias theory need to be reevaluated because eye-tracking data showed that dark and medium faces were attended equally in the negative perpetrator condition. Dark faces had not monopolized visual attention as predicted. VISUAL ATTENTION TO SKIN TONE OF OUT-GROUP MEMBERS 3 Biased Visual Attention to Out-Group Members’ Skin Tone Does Not Lead to Discriminatory Behavior Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, a White woman, was convinced that Ronald Cotton was the rapist who assaulted her. Later she found out, through DNA analysis, that Cotton was not the perpetrator. Bobby Poole was discovered to have committed the crime (Celizic, 2009). This incident raises two questions that need to be answered. Had the crime incident primed Mrs. Thompson-Cannino to certain implicit racial beliefs when looking at Cotton? Did these implicit beliefs then direct her attention to certain features of Cotton’s face? When comparing the two Black individuals, there was one defining feature that differed between the two men. Cotton’s skin tone was much darker than Poole’s. Racial phenotypicality bias and associative network theory may account for Mrs. Thompson-Cannino’s choice of Cotton as the perpetrator. Thompson-Cannino’s situation may be applied to any situation in which people are forced to rely on phenotypical cues to determine criminality or culpability of out-group members. Shedding light into the visual attention strategies people use when perceiving out-group members will provide both further understanding of implicit prejudice and help prevent the unjust accusation of innocent individuals. Racial Phenotypicality Bias According to the racial phenotype theory, ethnic and racial groups have a presumed set of defining features. Within groups there is variation on those features. The extent to which members resemble or depart from the physical prototype of a particular race will determine how strongly the perceiver associates them with preconceived racial stereotypes (Maddox, 2004). The perceiver’s judgments of a member of that category will then be in accord with those associations. If a White individual believes that Blacks are mostly criminals, then according to VISUAL ATTENTION TO SKIN TONE OF OUT-GROUP MEMBERS 4 racial phenotype bias, Blacks who possess more Afrocentric features (i.e., darker skin color, kinkier hair, broader nose, and fuller lips, Maddox, 2004) will be more likely to be viewed as more criminal. There is evidence to suggest that skin tone can be the defining physical feature used by Whites when judging the characteristics of Blacks. In a study by Maddox and Gray (2002, Study 2), White and Black participants were given the task of listing traits for seven social groups which were coded as positive, negative, or neutral (i.e., valence). The groups consisted of darkskinned Black women, dark-skinned Black men, light-skinned Black women, light-skinned Black men, White men, White women, and Native Americans. The first four groups were the focal groups. Maddox and Gray found that dark-skinned groups were ascribed more negative than positive traits compared to light-skinned groups. In a second portion of the study, the traits were coded into 22 categories that were labeled as stereotypic, counterstereotypical, or neutral (refer to page 257 in Study 2 for the complete list). Results revealed that for both White and Black participants, trait ratings of dark-skinned Blacks were negatively stereotypic in comparison to light-skinned Blacks. In terms of specific traits, White participants tended to list traits of dark-skinned males that fit into the categories: criminal, ostentatious, tough/aggressive, unattractive, uneducated, and least likely to be wealthy compared to their light-skinned counterpart. Dark-skinned women were more likely to be listed into the categories: lazy, poor, tough/aggressive, unattractive, uneducated, and unintelligent for their comparison. The divide between dark and light Blacks was suggested to be due to light-skinned Blacks having more “Eurocentric features” therefore lower phenotypic prototypicality (Maddox, 2004). In a series of studies by Wilkins, Kaiser, and Rieck (2010), phenotype prototypicality of the minority group members affected judgments by out-group members (White majority) and VISUAL ATTENTION TO SKIN TONE OF OUT-GROUP MEMBERS 5 was used to determine the targets’ levels of racial identification. White participants were asked to rate unlabeled pictures of out-group members (Study 1 and 2 consisted of Black targets, while Study 3 introduced Latino targets). Only the ratings from participants who correctly judged the race of the targets were collected. Targets that were high in phenotypic prototypicality were rated to have higher identification to their race in comparison to targets lower in prototypicality. This research provides possible clarification for how light-skinned minorities are judged. In the case of light-skinned Blacks, they are more likely to be viewed, by out-group members, as less identified with their racial identity. Therefore they could be perceived as more likely to act in a different and often positive manner (Maddox & Gray, 2002). To provide further evidence, two other studies document skin tone bias with more negative evaluation of Blacks with more Afrocentric (i.e. prototypical) features (Blair, Judd, Sadler, & Jenkins, 2002; Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004). Blair et al. (2002, Study 2) showed that when given a task to try to find four targets with certain provided descriptions, the faces with high rating in Afrocentric features (as rated in Study 1) were the most likely to be attributed descriptions depicting negative stereotypical views compared to less Afrocentric faces. To elaborate on the methodology, White participants were given the task of finding four people with certain characteristics. Two of the descriptions were written to be stereotypic and the other two counterstereotypical. In addition, the nature of the descriptions was also either positive or negative (for full details on these descriptions see Blair et al., 2002). Participants were asked to determine whether any of the Black male faces shown was one of the four targets. Judgments were made using a probability rating ranging from 0-99. Blair et al. (2004, Study 3) also found that Afrocentric feature-based judgments were automatic in nature and, unlike racial prejudice, were more resistant to conscious inhibition. VISUAL ATTENTION TO SKIN TONE OF OUT-GROUP MEMBERS 6 This finding was done through the inclusion of between-race judgments. The four targets were either White or Black. Participants were given explicit directions to be objective in two different ways based on either racial features (condition 1) or Afrocentric features (condition 2). When instructed to not use race-based judgments (discriminate facial variations between Whites and Blacks), participants were less likely to attribute the stereotypic descriptions to Black pictures. When instructed to not use Afrocentric features (discriminate facial variations within Blacks) the decline was not as pronounced. This finding raised the question of what made racial phenotype bias automatic (i.e., implicit) and how it was established. Associative Network Theory Although racial phenotype bias may explain why dark-skinned Blacks are likely to be seen as more criminal, associative network theory can elaborate on how and why those beliefs are established. The theory also attempts to explain and distinguish factors that are needed for these beliefs to get activated in racial judgment of the out-group. According to the theory, there are concepts that are in the brain for everything that a person has been exposed to and these concepts are termed “nodes” (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004). The nodes are also interconnected to form associations. Establishment of these nodes and associations are the product of learning. The strength of the associations will increase the probability of certain nodes activating together. In the context of stereotyping, the “Black race” node will increase the probability of activation of other concepts associated with it ranging from physical features to behavioral components (e.g. black, tall, poor, uneducated, etc.). The same theoretical logic can be applied to concepts “Blacks” and “crime. ” Dixon and Maddox (2005) examined the relationship between race, skin tone, and news viewing patterns. Participants in the study (mainly White females) were primed with a mock news story involving VISUAL ATTENTION TO SKIN TONE OF OUT-GROUP MEMBERS 7 an identified perpetra