Evidence of Shifting Racial Biases?

Racial biases are not fixed; they shift over time as cultural narratives about various social groups shift. Such shifts are usually triggered by catalytic events such as the murder of George Floyd. Dang et al. (2022) potentially document such a shift in brain responses to African Americans experiencing police violence; participants engage brain mechanisms involved in mentalising more when witnessing such atrocities, evidence of a lack of dehumanisation. This commentary urges caution towards such interpretations of these findings and encourages future research to better understanding shifting racial biases over time

Do we understand what it means for dogs to experience emotion?

Psychologists who study humans struggle to agree on a definition of emotion, falling primarily into two camps. Though recent neuroscience advances are beginning to settle this ancient debate, it cannot solve the private-language problem at the heart of inferences about social cognition. This suggests that when we consider the emotional experiences of other species like canines, biological and physiological homologs do not provide enough evidence of emotional experiences similar to those of humans. Secondary complex emotional experiences are even more difficult to attribute to non-humans since such experiences rely, by definition, on social cognition. Given the contextual differences between human-human and canine-human interactions, the communicative function of emotions may also differ in canines

What Can Affective Science Contribute to Eradicating Structural Racism?

This introduction to the Special Issue in Affective Science on structural racism lays a challenge to affective science researchers: improve the inefficiency in our science. It describes how structural racism leads to inefficiencies in idea generation, technological development, training, and career progression in our science, limiting its ability to fully discover the role of affect in the human condition. It briefly describes the content of the special issue, and attempts to start a dialogue about best practices for inclusive science

Dignity Takings and Dehumanization: A Social Neuroscience Perspective

Dehumanization is an important element of legal theorizing about property confiscation by state or governmental authorities that result in dignity takings. Psychologists have theorized about dehumanization for decades, yet have only been able to subject the topic to empirical examination over the last 15 years or so. Moving the topic from the armchair to the laboratory has revealed a number of surprises to lay theories about dehumanization. First, everyone is capable of dehumanizing another person. Second, the social context determines when dehumanization takes place. Third, dehumanization does not always lead to negative behavior. Fourth, dehumanization is functional, allowing the completion of a task at hand. Fifth, dehumanization avoids empathy exhaustion. Here, I will summarize the state of the psychological literature on dehumanization, and explain the impact of dehumanization in a legal context by reviewing the few such studies in the literature. I will then review how each of the five scientific discoveries regarding dehumanization applies to the concept of dignity takings, as discussed in the other papers in this review. I will also consider a distinction in the use of the concept of dehumanization regarding dignity takings compared to the psychological literature. Finally, I will conclude by discussing further implications for property, labor, health-care, and education law regarding dehumanization and dignity takings

Comparing emotion inferences from dogs (Canis familiaris), panins (Pan troglodytes/Pan paniscus), and humans (Homo sapiens) facial displays

Human beings are highly familiar over-learnt social targets, with similar physical facial morphology between perceiver and target. But does experience with or similarity to a social target determine whether we can accurately infer emotions from their facial displays? Here, we test this question across two studies by having human participants infer emotions from facial displays of: dogs, a highly experienced social target but with relatively dissimilar facial morphology; panins (chimpanzees/bonobos), inexperienced social targets, but close genetic relatives with a more similar facial morphology; and humans. We find that people are more accurate inferring emotions from facial displays of dogs compared to panins, though they are most accurate for human faces. However, we also find an effect of emotion, such that people vary in their ability to infer different emotional states from different species' facial displays, with anger more accurately inferred than happiness across species, perhaps hinting at an evolutionary bias towards detecting threat. These results not only compare emotion inferences from human and animal faces but provide initial evidence that experience with a non-human animal affects inferring emotion from facial displays

The performance of long vs. short questionnaire-based measures of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among UK adults: A comparison of the patient health questionnaires, generalized anxiety disorder scales, malaise inventory, and Kessler scales

It is often important to minimise the time participants in social science studies spend on completing questionnaire-based measures, reducing response burden, and increasing data quality. Here, we investigated the performance of the short versions of some widely used depression, anxiety, and psychological distress scales and compared them to the performance of longer versions of these scales (PHQ-2 vs PHQ-9, GAD-2 vs GAD-7, Malaise-3 vs Malaise-9, K6 vs K10). Across a sample of UK adults (N = 987, ages 18-86), we tested the existing factor structure and accuracy of the scales through confirmatory factor analyses and exploration of the total information functions, observing adequate model fit indices across the measures. Measurement invariance was tested across birth sex and age groups to explore whether any differences in measurement properties or measurement bias may exist, finding support for the invariance of most measures. We conducted bivariate correlations across the measures as a way of obtaining evidence of the equivalence in the rank-ordering of short vs long scales. The results followed a similar pattern across the young adult subsample (N = 375, ages 18-39) as in the overall sample. Overall, these results indicate that the short forms of the tested scales may perform similarly to the full versions. Where brevity is important, researchers may opt to use the shorter versions of the scales based on these data

Dangerous Speech: A Cross-Cultural Study of Dehumanization and Revenge

Dehumanization is routinely invoked in social science and law as the primary factor in explaining how propaganda encourages support for, or participation in, violence against targeted outgroups. Yet the primacy of dehumanization is increasingly challenged by the apparent influence of revenge on collective violence. This study examines critically how various propaganda influence audiences. Although previous research stresses the dangers of dehumanizing propaganda, a recently published study found that only revenge propaganda significantly lowered outgroup empathy. Given the importance of these findings for law and the behavioral sciences, this research augments that recent study with two additional samples that were culturally distinct from the prior findings, showing again that only revenge propaganda was significant. To explore this effect further, we also conducted a facial electromyography (fEMG) among a small set of participants, finding that revenge triggered significantly stronger negative emotions against outgroups than dehumanization

Dignity Takings and Dehumanization: A Social Neuroscience Perspective

Dehumanization is an important element of legal theorizing about property confiscation by state or governmental authorities that result in dignity takings. Psychologists have theorized about dehumanization for decades, yet have only been able to subject the topic to empirical examination over the last 15 years or so. Moving the topic from the armchair to the laboratory has revealed a number of surprises to lay theories about dehumanization. First, everyone is capable of dehumanizing another person. Second, the social context determines when dehumanization takes place. Third, dehumanization does not always lead to negative behavior. Fourth, dehumanization is functional, allowing the completion of a task at hand. Fifth, dehumanization avoids empathy exhaustion. Here, I will summarize the state of the psychological literature on dehumanization, and explain the impact of dehumanization in a legal context by reviewing the few such studies in the literature. I will then review how each of the five scientific discoveries regarding dehumanization applies to the concept of dignity takings, as discussed in the other papers in this review. I will also consider a distinction in the use of the concept of dehumanization regarding dignity takings compared to the psychological literature. Finally, I will conclude by discussing further implications for property, labor, health-care, and education law regarding dehumanization and dignity takings

Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?

Dehumanized perception, a failure to spontaneously consider the mind of another person, may be a psychological mechanism facilitating inhumane acts like torture. Social cognition - considering someone's mind - recognizes the other as a human being subject to moral treatment. Social neuroscience has reliably shown that participants normally activate a social-cognition neural network to pictures and thoughts of other people; our previous work shows that parts of this network uniquely fail to engage for traditionally dehumanized targets (homeless persons or drug addicts; see Harris & Fiske, 2009, for review). This suggests participants may not consider these dehumanized groups' minds. Study 1 demonstrates that participants do fail to spontaneously think about the contents of these targets' minds when imagining a day in their life, and rate them differently on a number of human-perception dimensions. Study 2 shows that these human-perception dimension ratings correlate with activation in brain regions beyond the social-cognition network, including areas implicated in disgust, attention, and cognitive control. These results suggest that disengaging social cognition affects a number of other brain processes and hints at some of the complex psychological mechanisms potentially involved in atrocities against humanity

How social cognition can inform social decision making

Social decision-making is often complex, requiring the decision-maker to make inferences of others’ mental states in addition to engaging traditional decision-making processes like valuation and reward processing. A growing body of research in neuroeconomics has examined decision- making involving social and nonsocial stimuli to explore activity in brain regions such as the striatum and prefrontal cortex, largely ignoring the power of the social context. Perhaps more complex processes may influence decision-making in social versus nonsocial contexts. Years of social psychology and social neuroscience research have documented a multitude of processes (e.g. mental state inferences, impression formation, spontaneous trait inferences) that occur upon viewing another person. These processes rely on a network of brain regions including medial prefrontal cortex, superior temporal sulcus, temporal parietal junction, and precuneus among others. Undoubtedly, these social cognition processes affect social decision-making since mental state inferences occur spontaneously and automatically. Few studies have looked at how these social inference processes affect decision-making in a social context despite the capability of these inferences to serve as predictions that can guide future decision-making. Here we review and integrate the person perception and decision-making literatures to understand how social cognition can inform the study of social decision-making in a way that is consistent with both literatures. We identify gaps in both literatures—while behavioral economics largely ignores social processes that spontaneously occur upon viewing another person, social psychology has largely failed to talk about the implications of social cognition processes in an economic decision-making context—and examine the benefits of integrating social psychological theory with behavioral economic theory