The current research examined attention allocation to assess whether people preferentially attend to Latino versus White faces. The current work also tested whether this attentional bias depended on whether the task involved a bi-ethnic context (only Latino and White faces) or a multi-ethnic context (Black, Latino, and White faces). Attention was measured with an exogenous cueing task that assessed attentional capture and holding toward faces of each racial group. Results showed that Latino faces captured attention faster and held attention longer than White faces. This attentional bias was evident in both bi-ethnic and multi-ethnic racial contexts.
Al-JanabiS.MacLeodC.RhodesG. (2012). Non-threatening other-race faces capture visual attention: Evidence from a dot-probe task. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e46119.
2.
BlairI. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
3.
BodenhausenG. V.LichtensteinM. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
4.
DondersN. C.CorrellJ.WittenbrinkB. (2008). Danger stereotypes predict racially biased attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1328-1333.
5.
EberhardtJ. L.GoffP. A.PurdieV. J.DaviesP. G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876-893.
6.
KosterE. H.CrombezG.Van DammeS.VerschuereB.De HouwerJ. (2004). Does imminent threat capture and hold attention?Emotion, 4, 312-317.
7.
LunaE. (2003). How the Black/White paradigm renders Mexicans/Mexican Americans and discrimination against them invisible. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 14, 225.
8.
MoggK.HolmesA.GarnerM.BradleyB. P. (2008). Effects of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 656-667.
9.
MyrdalG. (1944). An American dilemma, Volume 2: The Negro problem and modern democracy (Vol. 2). Transaction Publishers.
10.
OmiM.WinantH. (1986). Racial transformation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. In MichaelW. (Ed.), Apple. Critical social thought (p. 75). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
PereaJ. F. (1997). The Black/White binary paradigm of race: The “normal science” of American racial thought. California Law Review, 85, 1213-1258.
12.
RatcliffR. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
13.
RichesonJ. A.TrawalterS. (2008). The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases. Psychological Science, 19, 98-102.
14.
SadlerM. S.CorrellJ.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2012). The world is not black and white: Racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 286-313.
15.
SmithT. W.DempseyG. R. (1983). The polls: Ethnic social distance and prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 584-600.
16.
TrawalterS.ToddA. R.BairdA. A.RichesonJ. A. (2008). Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1322-1327.
17.
UhlmannE.DasguptaN.ElguetaA.GreenwaldA. G.SwansonJ. (2002). Subgroup prejudice based on skin color among Hispanics in the United States and Latin America. Social Cognition, 20, 198-226.
WeyantJ. M. (2005). Implicit stereotyping of Hispanics: Development and validity of a Hispanic version of the Implicit Association Test. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 355-363.
20.
WilsonT. C. (1996). Cohort and prejudice: Whites’ attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 253-274.
