SocialAttention
Creators: name: Shechter, Anat
name: Ecker, Yael
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Social Psychology
subject: Cognition and Perception
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology

description: The effect of race on social attention - Study Plan Prior research Even in the most progressive organizations and social structures there are still gaps in social power on the basis of race and gender. White men are by far the dominant group in authority and decision-making positions. There are many and diverse reasons for this imbalance in power. Social psychologists have done extensive work pointing out these reasons, focusing mainly on biases in attitudes. However, additional reasons may be needed to explain the perpetuation of such imbalances, especially in progressive societies and organizations, where people seem generally unbiased in their attitudes, as recorded with explicit and implicit measures of attitudes. One of these reasons might be people’s tendency to listen and devote more attention to individuals belonging to dominant social groups: e.g., White compared to black individuals and men compared to women. In line with this possibility, existing research shows that people tend to learn more from individuals of high social status (Atkisson, O'Brien, &amp; Mesoudi, 2012) and devote more visual attention to such individuals (DeWall &amp; Maner, 2008; Maner, Dewall, &amp; Gailliot, 2008; Ratcliff, Hugenberg, Shriver, &amp; Bernstein, 2011; Mattan, Kubota, &amp; Cloutier, 2017). In contrast, recent findings by Roberts, Palermo, &amp; Visser (2019) show that people tend to allocate attention to lower status targets when high and low status targets compete for attentional resources. Importantly, such competition may be the prevalent setting when considering that the internet offers an endless variety of sources available at all times. Moreover, while past research had mostly examined low-level attention allocation (i.e., eye-gaze), the present research examines more controlled decisions about attention allocation to information delivered by members of different social groups - a process which may have more direct and meaningful implications for everyday-life. Importantly, a tendency to devote more attention to dominant groups would not have to rely on a difference in attitudes. Instead, it may simply be a matter of sustaining a consistent social pattern. If one has tended all her life to listen to White people (as they prevail in authority positions), she may simply continue doing so. Doing otherwise would mean actively changing a pattern of behaviour, which is more effortful and potentially risky compared to sustaining an old pattern. Alternatively, a tendency to listen more to individuals belonging to dominant groups may result from a negative stereotype pertaining to the information value coming from different sources. Existing literature on stereotypes points at two main dimensions on which groups are stereotyped – competence and warmth (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &amp; Xu, 2002). Because dominance (as well as the affiliation to a dominant social group) is a type of competence, this may explain why people prefer to devote more attention to information that White rather than Black people provide. In this project, we will first test whether participants indeed prefer to listen to White over Black individuals on different issues. If that effect indeed arises, we will continue to explore the mechanism: whether it can be explained by a difference in attitudes, a difference in stereotypes, or a difference in past behaviour (a consistency-based explanation). In a study on a different question, we found that participants spent more time reading comments made by supposed White commenters than those of Black commenters. Specifically, we examined the reading duration of comments about the benefits of marijuana use as a potential outcome measure in an unrelated study. While this measure was not correlated with other attitude measures, we found that participants spent a significantly longer time reading comments made by (alleged) White commenters (t(898) = 15.2, p &lt; .001, d = .5). However, due to a programming error, we accidentally presented the target commentors in a fixed order, in which White targets appeared before Black targets. Therefore, the effect of the commentator’s race is potentially confounded with fatigue. Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine whether racial affiliation of a source of a message influences the amount of attention to the message. Namely, in the present research we will attempt to replicate our previous finding directly, as well as examine the effect of racial affiliation on readers’ attention in different topics. We will examine reading time of comments supposedly made by Black people and White people, about the following topics: (1) Marijuana use (replicating our previous finding, but this time both pro legalization statements and anti legalization statements), (2) Universal healthcare system, and (3) investment in infrastructure maintenance. We added two more topics to examine the generalizability of the effect. Method - Procedure overview: all participants will complete a task in which they will read 8 comments regarding Marijuana legalization/ Universal health-care system / Infrastructure maintenance (the topic will be manipulated between participants), given by four Black commentors and four White commentors. They will then complete a race IAT and a self-reported evaluation of Black and White people. They will also estimate how much time they read topics attributed to Black people and White people, to start exploring people’s awareness of the supposed effect. - Materials: o A reading-duration task • Participants read 8 short statements from different commenters (4 black and 4 white). The commenters are identified by a picture and a first name, with four White male commenters (names selected randomly for these either names: Jake, Connor, Tanner, Wyatt, Cody, Dustin, Luke, Jack) and four Black male commenters (named selected randomly for these eight names: DeShawn, DeAndre, Marquis, Darnell, Terrell, Malik, Trevon, Tyrone). The DV is mean reading duration per category. - - • Pro Marihuana legalization stimuli  “Not only does it help to rid the body of cancer cells, but it is the perfect medication for patients going through chemotherapy. There are over 100 peer-reviewed studies that can confirm that cannabis kills cancer cells in more ways than one, from halting metastasis to triggering cell suicide.”  “In addition to easing stress, cannabis decreases anxiety and helps you relax. That’s why pot smokers, for the most part, are happy people. In this day and age, staying grounded is necessary. A little weed is all you need to help you find inner peace and tranquillity.”  “people who smoke weed are at less risk for diabetes and obesity than those who don’t partake. In fact, several studies can prove that adults who toke have much smaller waist sizes, better-regulated insulin levels, and higher levels of HDL, aka that good cholesterol, than non-tokers.”  “Scarce law enforcement resources will be better used to ensure public safety while reducing corrections and court costs. State and local governments would acquire significant new sources of tax revenue from regulating marijuana sales.”  “Legalizing and regulating marijuana will bring one of the nation's largest cash crops under the rule of law. This will create jobs and economic opportunities in the formal economy instead of the illicit market.”  “Marijuana product testing is becoming a standard requirement for legalized marijuana markets. This means consumers are better informed about the marijuana they use.”  “Just ask the millions of potheads out there having great sex. If that’s not enough evidence, then there’s also a study that reveals that weed makes for an excellent aphrodisiac.”  “we can live out our own American values of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by respecting every individual’s liberty to make their own choices about their own body, their own time, and their own money.” • Against marijuana legalization stimuli:  The percentage of 12- to 17-year-olds using marijuana is higher in every legal marijuana state than the national average. For example, 16.21% of Colorado teens and 18.86% of teens in Alaska reported marijuana use in the past year, compared to an average of 12.29% for the United States overall in 2015-2016.  Traffic accidents and deaths increase when marijuana is legalized. Marijuana-related traffic deaths rose 62% following the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.  Marijuana is addictive, and dependence on the drug will increase with legalization. Heavy users who stop using marijuana may suffer withdrawal symptoms such as insomnia, depression, anxiety, nausea, chills, and stomach pain.  The black market and organized crime benefit from marijuana legalization. Law enforcement says that legal marijuana has actually enhanced opportunities for the black market. Prices charged by state-licensed sellers can easily be undercut by cartels.  Legalizing marijuana leads to more marijuana-related medical emergencies. After retail marijuana stores opened in Colorado, emergency room visits related to marijuana shot up nearly 30% and hospitalizations related to marijuana rose 200%.  Cannabis use may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders. Researchers at Harvard and Northwestern found that recreational marijuana smokers showed abnormalities in the shape, volume, and density of certain areas of the brain.  Smoking marijuana can damage lung tissues and cause respiratory problems; secondhand marijuana smoke is also dangerous. Research shows that smoking one marijuana joint is as damaging to the lungs as five tobacco cigarettes.  Marijuana cultivation results in deforestation, soil erosion, habitat destruction, and river diversion. Cannabis plants require nearly double the amount of water needed to grow grapes or tomatoes. • Pro Universal healthcare stimuli:  On the federal level, universal health care lowers health care costs for the national economy, because the government controls prices for medications and services.  Universal health care equalizes service, with no doctors or hospitals being able to cater to wealthier clients. That means everyone gets the same level of care, leading to a healthier workforce and longer life expectancy.  When a person has universal health care from birth, it can also lead to a longer and healthier life, and reduce societal inequality.  Among industrialized countries with comparable levels of economic development, government-provided health care is much more efficient and more economical than the U.S. system of private insurance.  With our largely privately funded health care system, we are paying more than twice as much as other countries for worse outcomes.  With universal health care, decisions would be put in the hands of doctors rather than insurance companies, which have allegiances to shareholders instead of patient care.  The health of others is relevant to the health of our families either through containment of infectious diseases or through the stability of the economy. Capitalism works best with a healthy workforce.  Universal health care would reduce wait times. Wait times are longer in the U.S. when compared with many countries with a universal health care system. • Against Universal healthcare stimuli :  Research from George Mason University concludes that providing government funded health care to all could increase federal spending by $32.6 trillion over the first ten years of implementation.  A right to health care could increase the wait time for medical services. Countries with a universal right to health care have longer wait times than in the United States.  The free market should determine the availability and cost of health care services, not the federal government.  Providing a right to health care could raise taxes. In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37% – much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker.  Providing a right to health care could worsen a doctor shortage. Doctor shortages in the United States have led to a 30% increase in wait times for doctors appointments between 2014 and 2017.  A right to health care could lower the quality and availability of disease screening and treatment. In countries with a universal right to health care certain disease treatment outcomes are worse than the United States.  In Canada and the United Kingdom, where there is a universal right to health care, physicians have incomes 15-51% lower than US doctors.  When people are provided with universal health care and are not directly responsible for the costs of medical services, they may utilize more health resources than necessary. • Pro-infrastructure maintenance investment stimuli  Deteriorating roads and bridges are a major factor in the recent increase in traffic congestion. In a functioning economy, people can’t spend half of their day on the road.  Sadly, the shrinking investment in maintenance over the past two decades has left the United States with an old and inefficient foundation for economic growth.  In the 1950s and ‘60s, federal, state and local governments were spending twice as much on maintaining the nation's public infrastructure, relative to the size of the economy, as they are today.  Infrastructure spending, unlike many other forms of government spending, has the ability to give the economy a boost for decades down the line. It is simply a good investment.  With maintenance lacking and interest rates low, many economists argue that America’s need for better infrastructure is so great that it could increase its debt load and still come out ahead.  Infrastructure may be among the most bipartisan of federal spending areas, but politics in general can be a problem. Lawmakers spread cash across the country instead of where the payoff would be greatest.  Doing nothing is itself costly. As water mains break, roadways deteriorate and bridges crumble, businesses forgo trillions in sales, and our economy sacrifices millions of jobs.  The costs of bad infrastructure are substantial, if hard to see. Neglect the water system, and you may have leaky pipes and larger bills, or even lead contamination. Rough roads equal more flat tires. • Against-infrastructure maintenance investment stimuli  Fixing roads and bridges would not do much to solve traffic congestion or encourage economical growth. For a strong economy, we need to stimulate businesses, not roads.  Infrastructure spending, just like other forms of government spending, will not help the economy grow. It is simply a bad investment.  In the current state of the economy, many economists argue that America needs to lower its investment in infrastructure which would only increase its debt load.  Infrastructure spending is used cynically for political gain. Lawmakers spread cash across the country instead of where the payoff would be greatest.  Infrastructure isn't a form of spending that can be done quickly. Therefore the effect on aggregate demand, as a form of fiscal policy, doesn't make sense. We'll never be able to get it in line with the business cycle.  The government has a fabulous knack for spending on infrastructure that it just isn't sensible for us to build in the first place.  If we do decide to spend more on infrastructure, we won’t have enough people to build it. And we can't just take unemployed people; it's skilled labor and it takes a few years to learn how to do it.  Public infrastructure spending in the US is not cost effective. Precisely because it is public we've got union rules that makes it expensive, and other rules which make it time consuming to start a project. o An attitude IAT • • Stimuli for ‘Good Words/ Bad Words’: laughter, happy, glorious, joy, wonderful, peace, pleasure, love, awful, failure, agony, hurt, horrible, terrible, nasty, evil. o Self-reported evaluation of Black and White people (9 items) • How likable do you find Black people: (1) Extremely Unlikable- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Likable • How likable do you find White people: (1) Extremely Unlikable- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Likable • How friendly do you find Black people: (1) Extremely Unfriendly- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Friendly • How friendly do you find White people: (1) Extremely Unfriendly- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Friendly • How trustworthy do you find Black people: (1) Extremely Untrustworthy- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Trustworthy • How trustworthy do you find White people: (1) Extremely Untrustworthy- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Trustworthy • How competent do you find Black people: (1) Extremely Incompetent- (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Competent • How competent do you find White people: (1) Extremely Incompetent - (4) Neutral- (7) Extremely Competent • What is your preference between Black people and White people: (1) Strong preference for Black people – (4) No preference- (7) Strong preference for White people Analyses plan: • All raw latencies will be winsorized before analysis. • Main analysis: We will examine the main effect of commenter-race in a 3-way ANOVA with commenter-race (Black/White) as a within factor variable and comment-topic (Marijuana/Maintenance/ Healthcare system) and opinion (pro/anti) as between participant variables, on reading time. • LME analysis: in addition to analysing average values per participant, we will also conduct Linear Mixed-Effects analysis with arguments and participants as random effects, and race of commentator as a fixed effect. • Secondary analysis: We will compute a bias score based on the difference in latency between the two conditions (White commenters/Black commenters) and examine its correlation with the implicit and explicit attitude measures. • Data collection plans: o We will run 1052 participants to achieve 99% power to detect a small (pes=.02) main effect of commenter-race in a 3-way ANOVA.