CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Looking the Part: Social Status Cues Shape Race Perception

Freeman, Jonathan B., Penner, Andrew M., Saperstein, Aliya, Scheutz, Matthias, Ambady, Nalini·2011·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025107PMC PMC3180382
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0025107

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The influence of status cues on race categorization. (A) Sample stimuli. A high-status or low-status cue was affixed to 13-point morph continua, where race was varied from White (−6) to Black (+6). (B) The likelihood of Black categorization is plotted as a function of morph values, separately for faces with high-status versus low-status attire (Experiment 2). Note the canonical sigmoidal shape of the curves, consistent with the categorical perception of race [30]. Also note that the strongest influences of the status cue are in the middle of the continuum (most clearly shown in Fig. 1C). (C) The same plot as in Fig. 1B, except here zooming in on the middle of the morph continuum, where race is most ambiguous.
Figure 1 The influence of status cues on race categorization. (A) Sample stimuli. A high-status or low-status cue was affixed to 13-point morph continua, where race was varied from White (−6) to Black (+6). (B) The likelihood of Black categorization is plotted as a function of morph values, separately for faces with high-status versus low-status attire (Experiment 2). Note the canonical sigmoidal shape of the curves, consistent with the categorical perception of race [30]. Also note that the strongest influences of the status cue are in the middle of the continuum (most clearly shown in Fig. 1C). (C) The same plot as in Fig. 1B, except here zooming in on the middle of the morph continuum, where race is most ambiguous.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Racial ambiguity's moderation of the influence of status cues. (A) The likelihood of Black categorization is plotted as a function of racial ambiguity, separately for faces surrounded by high-status versus low-status attire (Experiment 2). (B) The degree of the hand's attraction toward the opposite race-category response (indexed by trajectory curvature) is plotted as a function of racial ambiguity, separately for trials where the categorization response was stereotypically congruent versus incongruent with the status cue (Experiment 2).
Figure 2 Racial ambiguity's moderation of the influence of status cues. (A) The likelihood of Black categorization is plotted as a function of racial ambiguity, separately for faces surrounded by high-status versus low-status attire (Experiment 2). (B) The degree of the hand's attraction toward the opposite race-category response (indexed by trajectory curvature) is plotted as a function of racial ambiguity, separately for trials where the categorization response was stereotypically congruent versus incongruent with the status cue (Experiment 2).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mean computer mouse trajectories. In the figures, trajectories for all targets were remapped rightward, with the other, unselected race category on the left and the selected race category on the right. A sample face stimulus, surrounded by a status cue associated with the selected race category, is shown on the right, next to the mean trajectory for congruent trials (when faces with high-status cues were categorized as White or faces with low-status cues were categorized as Black). On the left is shown that same face stimulus, but with a status cue associated with the other, unselected race category, next to the mean trajectory for incongruent trials (when faces with high-status cues were categorized as Black or faces with low-status cues were categorized as White). During an actual trial, a single face was centered at the bottom of the screen. As shown in Fig. 2B, trajectories for incongruent trials showed an attraction toward the other race category response, relative to trajectories for congruent trials, and this attraction grew as racial increased in ambiguity. This is exemplified by the difference between the two panels. Panel A shows trajectories averaged across trials for the most ambiguous faces (morphs 0 and ±1), along with a sample ambiguous face stimulus. Panel B shows trajectories averaged across trials for the least ambiguous faces (morphs ±5 and ±6), along with a sample unambiguously White face stimulus.
Figure 3 Mean computer mouse trajectories. In the figures, trajectories for all targets were remapped rightward, with the other, unselected race category on the left and the selected race category on the right. A sample face stimulus, surrounded by a status cue associated with the selected race category, is shown on the right, next to the mean trajectory for congruent trials (when faces with high-status cues were categorized as White or faces with low-status cues were categorized as Black). On the left is shown that same face stimulus, but with a status cue associated with the other, unselected race category, next to the mean trajectory for incongruent trials (when faces with high-status cues were categorized as Black or faces with low-status cues were categorized as White). During an actual trial, a single face was centered at the bottom of the screen. As shown in Fig. 2B, trajectories for incongruent trials showed an attraction toward the other race category response, relative to trajectories for congruent trials, and this attraction grew as racial increased in ambiguity. This is exemplified by the difference between the two panels. Panel A shows trajectories averaged across trials for the most ambiguous faces (morphs 0 and ±1), along with a sample ambiguous face stimulus. Panel B shows trajectories averaged across trials for the least ambiguous faces (morphs ±5 and ±6), along with a sample unambiguously White face stimulus.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 A new instantiation of the dynamic interactive model of person categorization (see [14]), a recurrent connectionist network that was used to account for the empirical data.
Figure 4 A new instantiation of the dynamic interactive model of person categorization (see [14]), a recurrent connectionist network that was used to account for the empirical data.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Results of the computational simulations. (A) The proportion of simulation runs in which the network settled into the Black category (the Black category node won the competition) after presented with faces that varied along a continuum of race and with either high-status or low-status attire. Note the close correspondence with the data from human perceivers (Fig. 1B). (B) Maximum activation level of the winning White or Black category node (the selected category) and the losing White or Black category node (unselected category) is plotted for incongruent trials (when the Black category won the competition for a face with high-status attire, or the White category won the competition for a face with low-status attire), at varying levels of racial ambiguity. Note that the unselected category is partially activated as well, and that as racial ambiguity increases the maximum activation level of the other, unselected category increases correspondingly. This accounts for why participants' mouse movements exhibit an attraction toward that unselected race category, and increasingly so as race becomes more ambiguous (Fig. 3).
Figure 5 Results of the computational simulations. (A) The proportion of simulation runs in which the network settled into the Black category (the Black category node won the competition) after presented with faces that varied along a continuum of race and with either high-status or low-status attire. Note the close correspondence with the data from human perceivers (Fig. 1B). (B) Maximum activation level of the winning White or Black category node (the selected category) and the losing White or Black category node (unselected category) is plotted for incongruent trials (when the Black category won the competition for a face with high-status attire, or the White category won the competition for a face with low-status attire), at varying levels of racial ambiguity. Note that the unselected category is partially activated as well, and that as racial ambiguity increases the maximum activation level of the other, unselected category increases correspondingly. This accounts for why participants' mouse movements exhibit an attraction toward that unselected race category, and increasingly so as race becomes more ambiguous (Fig. 3).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. CN Macrae, 2000, Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others., Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93, 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93 · DOI
  2. H Hill, 1995, Perceiving the sex and race of faces: The role of shape and colour., Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 261, 367, 10.1098/rspb.1995.0161 · DOI
  3. ST Fiske, 1990, A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1, 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2 · DOI
  4. J Hurwitz, 2005, Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the U.S. criminal justice system., Journal of Politics, 67, 762, 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00338.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. M Gilens, 1999, Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy, 10.7208/chicago/9780226293660.001.0001 · DOI
  6. AM Penner, 2008, How social status shapes race., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 19628, 10.1073/pnas.0805762105 · DOI
  7. A Noymer, 2011, Cause of death affects racial classification on death certificates., Plos ONE, 6, e15812, 10.1371/journal.pone.0015812 · DOI
  8. JL Eberhardt, 2003, Believing is seeing: The effects of racial labels and implicit beliefs on face perception., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 360, 10.1177/0146167202250215 · DOI
  9. E Castano, 2002, Who may enter? The impact of in-group identification on in-group/out-group categorization., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 315, 10.1006/jesp.2001.1512 · DOI
  10. JL Eberhardt, 2004, Seeing Black: Race, crime, and visual processing., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876, 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876 · DOI · Paper page
  11. OH MacLin, 2001, Racial categorization of faces: The ambiguous-race face effect., Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7, 98, 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.98 · DOI
  12. PG Schyns, 1998, Diagnostic recognition, task constraints, object information, and their interactions., Cognition, 67, 147, 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00016-X · DOI
  13. JB Freeman, 2011, A dynamic interactive theory of person construal., Psychological Review, 118, 247, 10.1037/a0022327 · DOI
  14. PL Smith, 2004, Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions., Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 161, 10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
  15. M Usher, 2003, The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model., Psychological Review, 108, 550, 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550 · DOI · Paper page
  16. MJ Spivey, 2006, Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition., Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 207, 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00437.x · DOI
  17. JB Freeman, 2010, Continuous dynamics in the real-time perception of race., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 179, 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.002 · DOI
  18. JB Freeman, 2008, Will a category cue attract you? Motor output reveals dynamic competition across person construal., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 673, 10.1037/a0013875 · DOI
  19. S Grossberg, 1980, How does a brain build a cognitive code?, Psychological Review, 87, 1, 10.1037/0033-295X.87.1.1 · DOI
  20. D Peery, 2008, Black+White = Black: Hypodescent in reflexive categorization of racially ambiguous faces., Psychological Science, 19, 973, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02185.x · DOI
  21. JB Freeman, 2011, Hand in motion reveals mind in motion., Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59, 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059 · DOI
  22. SL Zeger, 1986, Longitudinal Data Analysis for Discrete and Continuous Outcomes., Biometrics, 42, 121, 10.2307/2531248 · DOI
  23. JL McClelland, 1991, Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception., Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1, 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90002-6 · DOI
  24. TT Rogers, 2004, Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach, 10.7551/mitpress/6161.001.0001 · DOI
  25. DT Levin, 2002, Categorical perception of race., Perception, 31, 567, 10.1068/p3315 · DOI
  26. IV Blair, 2004, The Automaticity of Race and Afrocentric Facial Features in Social Judgments., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 763, 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.763 · DOI
  27. RB Adams, 2010, The Science of Social Vision, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333176.001.0001 · DOI
  28. E Balcetis, 2010, The Social Psychology of Visual Perception, 10.4324/9780203848043 · DOI
  29. RH Fazio, 2001, On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview., Cognition and Emotion, 15, 115, 10.1080/02699930125908 · DOI
  30. JA Bargh, 1996, Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230, 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230 · DOI · Paper page
  31. NJ Ratcliff, 2011, The allure of status: High-status targets are privileged in face processing and memory., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1003, 10.1177/0146167211407210 · DOI
  32. K Hugenberg, 2004, Ambiguity in Social Categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization., Psychological Science, 15, 342, 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00680.x · DOI
  33. AK Ho, 2011, Evidence for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and perception of biracial individuals., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 492, 10.1037/a0021562 · DOI
  34. J Halberstadt, 2011, Why Barack Obama is Black: A cognitive account of hypodescent., Psychological Science, 22, 29, 10.1177/0956797610390383 · DOI
  35. LA Hirschfeld, 1995, The inheritability of identity: Children's understanding of the cultural biology of race., Child Development, 66, 1418, 10.2307/1131655 · DOI
  36. K Pauker, 2009, Not so Black and White: Memory for ambiguous group members., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 795, 10.1037/a0013265 · DOI
  37. K Sexton, 1993, Air pollution health risks: do class and race matter?, Toxicology and Industrial Health, 9, 843, 10.1177/074823379300900509 · DOI
  38. V Blanz, 1999, A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. SIGGRAPH'99, 187
  39. JB Freeman, 2010, MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method., Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226, 10.3758/BRM.42.1.226 · DOI
  40. ER Smith, 1992, Exemplar-based model of social judgment., Psychological Review, 99, 3, 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M., & Ambady, N.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2011-09-26
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
e25107
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0025107
PMC
PMC3180382
Cited by
218
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review