An official website of the United States government
Social pain, defined as responses to aversive interpersonal experiences (e.g., ostracism, unfairness, disrespect), has profound effects on health and well-being. Yet, research indicates that race biases judgments of social pain, leading people to believe that Black individuals experience less social pain than White individuals. The current work extends this research, testing whether characteristics associated with Black racial phenotypicality shapes this social pain effect. Five studies tested the hypothesis that people would judge targets high in Black racial phenotypicality as less sensitive to social pain and consequently requiring fewer coping resources than targets low in racial phenotypicality. The results of these studies reveals a consistent effect of Black racial phenotypicality on social pain judgments (Studies 1-5; Ncumulative=1,064). Moreover, this phenotypicality effect shaped judgments of social pain for both Black and White targets, suggesting effects are driven by stereotype-related characteristics rather than activation of the Black racial category. Study 3 links this bias with judgments of toughness independent of other plausible mechanisms and Studies 4-5 provide evidence that phenotypic biases in social pain undermine social support judgments. Perceivers believed Black individuals high in phenotypicality experienced less social pain and, consequently, required fewer coping resources to manage distress compared to individuals low in Black phenotypicality. These results provide evidence for a target-level bias in social pain judgments.
more »
« less
Race-Based Biases in Judgments of Social Pain
Six studies tested the hypothesis that evaluators judge Black people less sensitive to social pain than White people. Social pain was operationalized as the psychological distress caused by experiences that damage social worth and interpersonal relationships (e.g., derogation, exclusion, unfairness). White evaluators judged both Black male (Studies 1, 2a, & 2b) and female (Studies 2a & 2b) targets as experiencing less social pain than White male and female targets. Study 3 provided evidence that this bias also extends to Black evaluators. Further, the belief that Black people are less sensitive to social pain than White people was mediated by judgments of differential life hardship experienced by Black and White targets (Study 4) and did not seem to be a subset of a broader tendency to judge Black targets as generally insensate (Study 5). Critically, the observed race-based social pain bias also translated into beliefs that Black targets needed fewer supportive resources than White targets to cope with socially painful events (Study 6). The current research demonstrates that there are racial biases in judgments of others’ psychological distress and these biases inform social support judgments for those in need.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1748461
- PAR ID:
- 10189480
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of experimental social psychology
- ISSN:
- 1096-0465
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Attributing gender discrimination to implicit bias has become increasingly common. However, research suggests that when discrimination is attributed to implicit rather than explicit bias, the perpetrators are held less accountable and deemed less worthy of punishment. The present work examines (a) whether this effect replicates in the domain of gender discrimination, and (b) whether sharing a group membership with the victim moderates the effect. Four studies revealed that both men and women hold perpetrators of gender discrimination less accountable if their behavior is attributed to implicit rather than explicit bias. Moreover, women held male (Studies 1–3), but not female (Study 4), perpetrators of gender discrimination more accountable than did men. Together, these findings suggest that while shared gender group membership may inform judgments of accountability for gender discrimination, it does not weaken the tendency to hold perpetrators less accountable for discrimination attributed to implicit, compared with explicit, bias.more » « less
-
Abstract Wealth‐based disparities in health care wherein the poor receive undertreatment in painful conditions are a prominent issue that requires immediate attention. Research with adults suggests that these disparities are partly rooted in stereotypes associating poor individuals with pain insensitivity. However, whether and how children consider a sufferer's wealth status in their pain perceptions remains unknown. The present work addressed this question by testing 4‐ to 9‐year‐olds from the US and China. In Study 1 (N = 108, 56 girls, 79% White), US participants saw rich and poor White children experiencing identical injuries and indicated who they thought felt more pain. Although 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds responded at chance, children aged seven and above attributed more pain to the poor than to the rich. Study 2 with a new sample of US children (N = 111, 56 girls, 69% White) extended this effect to judgments of White adults’ pain. Pain judgments also informed children's prosocial behaviors, leading them to provide medical resources to the poor. Studies 3 (N = 118, 59 girls, 100% Asian) and 4 (N = 80, 40 girls, 100% Asian) found that, when evaluating White and Asian people's suffering, Chinese children began to attribute more pain to the poor than to the rich earlier than US children. Thus, unlike US adults, US children and Chinese children recognize the poor's pain from early on. These findings add to our knowledge of group‐based beliefs about pain sensitivity and have broad implications on ways to promote equitable health care. Research HighlightsFour studies examined whether 4‐ to 9‐year‐old children's pain perceptions were influenced by sufferers’ wealth status.US children attributed more pain to White individuals of low wealth status than those of high wealth status by age seven.Chinese children demonstrated an earlier tendency to attribute more pain to the poor (versus the rich) compared to US children.Children's wealth‐based pain judgments underlied their tendency to provide healthcare resources to people of low wealth status.more » « less
-
Previous research often suggests that people who endorse more essentialist beliefs about social groups are also likely to show increased prejudice towards members of these social groups, and there is even some evidence to suggest that essentialism may lead to prejudice and stereotyping. However, there are several notable exceptions to this pattern in that, for certain social groups (e.g., gay men and lesbians), higher essentialism is actually related to lower prejudice. The current studies further explored the relationship between essentialism and prejudice by examining a novel type of essentialism—transgender essentialism (i.e., essentializing transgender identity), and its relationship to prejudice towards transgender people. Study 1 (N = 248) tested the viability of transgender essentialism as a construct and examined the association between transgender essentialism and transprejudice, while Studies 2a (N = 315), 2b (N = 343), 3a (N = 310), and 3b (N = 204) tested two casual pathways to explain this relationship. The results consistently showed that the more that people endorse transgender essentialist beliefs, the warmer their feelings towards trans people (relative to cis people) were, echoing past research showing a similar relationship between essentialism and prejudice towards sexual minorities. However, the manipulations of both essentialism (Studies 2a and 2b) and prejudice (Studies 3a and 3b) were largely unsuccessful at changing the desired construct, meaning we were unable to provide direct causal tests. The one exception was a successful manipulation of the universality of trans experiences, but even here this resulted in no change in prejudice. The primary contribution of this work is in robustly demonstrating that greater transgender essentialism is associated with transprejudice.more » « less
-
Research on sex biases in longevity in mammals often assumes that male investment in competition results in a female survival advantage that is constant throughout life. We use 35 years of longitudinal data on 1003 wild bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops aduncus ) to examine age-specific mortality, demonstrating a time-varying effect of sex on mortality hazard over the five-decade lifespan of a social mammal. Males are at higher risk of mortality than females during the juvenile period, but the gap between male and female mortality hazard closes in the mid-teens, coincident with the onset of female reproduction. Female mortality hazard is non-significantly higher than male mortality hazard in adulthood, resulting in a moderate male bias in the oldest age class. Bottlenose dolphins have an intensely male-competitive mating system, and juvenile male mortality has been linked to social competition. Contrary to predictions from sexual selection theory, however, male–male competition does not result in sustained male-biased mortality. As female dolphins experience high costs of sexual coercion in addition to long and energetically expensive periods of gestation and lactation, this suggests that substantial female investment in reproduction can elevate female mortality risk and impact sex biases in lifespan.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
