In the Weapon Identification Task (WIT), Black faces prime the identification of guns compared with tools. We measured race-induced changes in visual awareness of guns and tools using continuous flash suppression (CFS). Eighty-four participants, primed with Black or Asian faces, indicated the location of a gun or tool target that was temporarily rendered invisible through CFS, which provides a sensitive measure of effects on early visual processing. The same participants also completed a standard (non-CFS) WIT. We replicated the standard race-priming effect in the WIT. In the CFS task, Black and Asian primes did not affect the time guns and tools needed to enter awareness. Thus, race priming does not alter early visual processing but does change the identification of guns and tools. This confirms that race-priming originates from later post-perceptual memory- or response-related processing.
AlsiusA.MunhallK. G. (2013). Detection of audiovisual speech correspondences without visual awareness. Psychological Science, 24(4), 423–431.
2.
BachP.SchenkeK. C. (2017). Predictive social perception: Towards a unifying framework from action observation to person knowledge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(7), Article e12312.
3.
BalcetisE.ColeS. (2013). On misers, managers, and monsters: The social cognition of visual perception. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 329–351). Oxford University Press.
BijlstraG.HollandR. W.DotschR.HugenbergK.WigboldusD. H. (2014). Stereotype associations and emotion recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 567–577.
6.
BowersW. J.SandysM.BrewerT. W. (2003). Crossing racial boundaries: A closer look at the roots of racial bias in capital sentencing when the defendant is black and the victim is white. DePaul Law Review, 53, 1497.
7.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
8.
BrunerJ. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2), 123–152.
9.
BrunerJ. S. (1992). Another look at new look 1. American Psychologist, 47(6), 780–783.
10.
CostelloP.JiangY.BaartmanB.McGlennenK.HeS. (2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 375–382.
11.
EberhardtJ. L.GoffP. A.PurdieV. J.DaviesP. G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 876–893.
12.
FirestoneC.SchollB. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38–46.
13.
FirestoneC.SchollB. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, Article e229.
14.
FreemanJ. B.JohnsonK. L. (2016). More than meets the eye: Split-second social perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(5), 362–374.
15.
GayetS.PaffenC. L.BelopolskyA. V.TheeuwesJ.Van der StigchelS. (2016). Visual input signaling threat gains preferential access to awareness in a breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm. Cognition, 149, 77–83.
16.
GayetS.PaffenC. L.Van der StigchelS. (2013). Information matching the content of visual working memory is prioritized for conscious access. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2472–2480.
17.
GayetS.Van der StigchelS.PaffenC. L. (2014). Breaking continuous flash suppression: Competing for consciousness on the pre-semantic battlefield. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 460.
18.
GreenwaldA. G.OakesM. A.HoffmanH. G. (2003). Targets of discrimination: Effects of race on responses to weapons holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 399–405.
19.
HugenbergK.BodenhausenG. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14(6), 640–643.
20.
JASP-Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.12.2).
21.
JenkinZ.SiegelS. (2015). Cognitive penetrability: Modularity, epistemology, and ethics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(4), 531–545.
22.
JiangY.CostelloP.HeS. (2007). Processing of invisible stimuli: Advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychological Science, 18(4), 349–355.
23.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69.
24.
KassR. E.RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795.
25.
KidderC. K.WhiteK. R.HinojosM. R.SandovalM.CritesS. L.Jr. (2018). Sequential stereotype priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 199–227.
26.
KlauerK. C.VossA. (2008). Effects of race on responses and response latencies in the weapon identification task: A test of six models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1124–1140.
27.
KumleL.VoM. L.-H.DraschkowD. (2018). Mixedpower: A library for estimating simulation-based power for mixed models in R [Computer software]. https://github.com/DejanDraschkow/mixedpower
28.
KumleL.VoM. L.-H.DraschkowD. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 2528–2543.
LupyanG.WardE. J. (2013). Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(35), 14196–14201.
31.
MekawiY.BresinK. (2015). Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 120–130.
32.
NewenA.VetterP. (2017). Why cognitive penetration of our perceptual experience is still the most plausible account. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 26–37.
33.
OgilvieR.CarruthersP. (2016). Opening up vision: The case against encapsulation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(4), 721–742.
34.
OttenM.BanajiM. R. (2012). Social categories shape the neural representation of emotion: Evidence from a visual face adaptation task. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, Article 9.
35.
OttenM.SethA. K.PintoY. (2017). A social Bayesian brain: How social knowledge can shape visual perception. Brain and Cognition, 112, 69–77.
36.
PayneB. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 181–192.
37.
PayneB. K. (2006). Weapon bias split-second decisions and unintended stereotyping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 287–291.
38.
PayneB. K.ShimizuY.JacobyL. L. (2005). Mental control and visual illusions: Toward explaining race-biased weapon misidentifications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(1), 36–47.
39.
PintoY.van GaalS.de LangeF. P.LammeV. A.SethA. K. (2015). Expectations accelerate entry of visual stimuli into awareness. Journal of Vision, 15(8), 1–13.
40.
PylyshynZ. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(03), 341–365.
41.
RabovskyM.SteinT.RahmanR. A. (2016). Access to awareness for faces during continuous flash suppression is not modulated by affective knowledge. PLOS ONE, 11(4), Article e0150931.
42.
RiversA. M. (2017). The weapons identification task: Recommendations for adequately powered research. PLOS ONE, 12(6), Article e0177857.
43.
SagarH. A.SchofieldJ. W. (1980). Racial and behavioral cues in Black and White children’s perceptions of ambiguously aggressive acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 590–598.
44.
SiegelS. (2012). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs, 46(2), 201–222.
45.
SteinT. (2019). The breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm: Review, evaluation, and outlook. In HesselmannG. (Ed.), Transitions between consciousness and unconsciousness (pp. 1–38). Routledge.
46.
SteinT.AwadD.GayetS.PeelenM. V. (2018). Unconscious processing of facial dominance: The role of low-level factors in access to awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), e1–e13.
47.
SteinT.EndA.SterzerP. (2014). Own-race and own-age biases facilitate visual awareness of faces under interocular suppression. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 582.
48.
SteinT.GrubbC.BertrandM.SuhS. M.VeroskyS. C. (2017). No impact of affective person knowledge on visual awareness: Evidence from binocular rivalry and continuous flash suppression. Emotion, 17, 1199–1207.
49.
SteinT.PeelenM. V. (2015). Content-specific expectations enhance stimulus detectability by increasing perceptual sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1089–1104.
50.
SteinT.ThomaV.SterzerP. (2015). Priming of object detection under continuous flash suppression depends on attention but not on part-whole configuration. Journal of Vision, 15(3), Article 15.
van MoorselaarD.GayetS.PaffenC. L.TheeuwesJ.Van der StigchelS.OliversC. N. (2018). Competitive interactions in visual working memory drive access to awareness. Cortex, 102, 6–13.
53.
Van RynM.BurkeJ. (2000). The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients. Social Science & Medicine, 50(6), 813–828.
54.
VetterP.NewenA. (2014). Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 62–75.
55.
WenturaD.DegnerJ. (2010). A practical guide to sequential priming and related tasks. In GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 95–116). Guilford Press.
56.
XiaoY. J.CoppinG.Van BavelJ. J. (2016). Perceiving the world through group-colored glasses: A perceptual model of intergroup relations. Psychological Inquiry, 27(4), 255–274.
