Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity?

It is often surprisingly difficult to make definitive scientific statements about the functional value of group diversity. We suggest that one clear pattern in the group diversity literature is the prevailing convention of interpreting outcomes as the effect of diversity alone. Although work in this arena typically compares diverse groups with homogeneous ones, we most often conceive of homogeneous groups as a baseline—a reference point from which we can understand how diversity has changed behavior or what type of response is “normal.” In this article, we offer a new perspective through a focus on two propositions. The first proposition is that homogeneity has independent effects of its own—effects that, in some cases, are robust in comparison with the effects of diversity. The second proposition is that even though subjective responses in homogeneous groups are often treated as a neutral indicator of how people would ideally respond in a group setting, evidence suggests that these responses are often less objective or accurate than responses in diverse groups. Overall, we believe that diversity research may unwittingly reveal important insights regarding the effects of homogeneity.National Science Foundation (U.S.) (NSF Grant 0921728

Eye-Gaze Direction Modulates Race-Related Amygdala Activity

Although previous research has found greater activity in the human amygdala in response to Black male compared with White male targets, the basis of this effect remains unclear. For example, is it race alone that triggers amygdala activity, or do other stimulus cues, in conjunction with racial group membership, also play a critical role in this regard? To address this issue, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure amygdala activity in response to Black and White male targets displaying different eye-gaze directions (i.e. direct or averted gaze), as gaze cues have been shown to influence the socio-emotional aspects of person construal. The results revealed that eye-gaze direction significantly moderates race-related amygdala activity. Specifically, Black targets only generated greater amygdala activity than White targets when the faces bore direct gaze. This finding is noteworthy as it demonstrates the importance of compound stimulus cues in the appraisal of social targets

Structurally unjust: how lay beliefs about racism relate to responses to racial inequality in the criminal legal system

Racial inequality has been a persistent component of American society since its inception. The present research investigates how lay beliefs about the nature of racism—as primarily caused by prejudiced individuals or, rather, to structural factors (i.e., policies, institutional practices) that disadvantage members of marginalized racial groups—predict reactions to evidence of racial inequality in the criminal legal system (Studies 1–3). Specifically, the current research suggests that holding a more structural (vs. interpersonal) view of racism predicts a greater tendency to perceive racial inequality in criminal legal outcomes. Moreover, White Americans' lay beliefs regarding racism, coupled with their general degree of preference for societal hierarchy, predict support for policies that would impact disparities in the U.S. prison population. Together, this work suggests that an appreciation of structural racism plays an important role in how people perceive and respond to racial inequality

Middle class and marginal? Socioeconomic status, stigma, and self-regulation at an elite university.

In four studies, the authors investigated the proposal that in the context of an elite university, individuals from relatively lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds possess a stigmatized identity and, as such, experience (a) concerns regarding their academic fit and (b) self-regulatory depletion as a result of managing these concerns. Study 1, a correlational study, revealed the predicted associations between SES, concerns about academic fit, and self-regulatory strength. Results from Studies 2 and 3 suggested that self-presentation involving the academic domain is depleting for lower (but not higher) SES students: After a self-presentation task about academic achievement, lower SES students consumed more candy (Study 2) and exhibited poorer Stroop performance (Study 3) relative to their higher SES peers; in contrast, the groups did not differ after discussing a nonacademic topic (Study 3). Study 4 revealed the potential for eliminating the SES group difference in depletion via a social comparison manipulation. Taken together, these studies support the hypothesis that managing concerns about marginality can have deleterious consequences for self-regulatory resources

At risk of being risky: The relationship between "brain age" under emotional states and risk preference.

Developmental differences regarding decision making are often reported in the absence of emotional stimuli and without context, failing to explain why some individuals are more likely to have a greater inclination toward risk. The current study (N=212; 10-25y) examined the influence of emotional context on underlying functional brain connectivity over development and its impact on risk preference. Using functional imaging data in a neutral brain-state we first identify the "brain age" of a given individual then validate it with an independent measure of cortical thickness. We then show, on average, that "brain age" across the group during the teen years has the propensity to look younger in emotional contexts. Further, we show this phenotype (i.e. a younger brain age in emotional contexts) relates to a group mean difference in risk perception - a pattern exemplified greatest in young-adults (ages 18-21). The results are suggestive of a specified functional brain phenotype that relates to being at "risk to be risky.

Moving While Black: Intergroup Attitudes Influence Judgments of Speed

Four experiments examined whether intergroup attitudes shape the speed with which Blacks are thought to be moving. When participants rated the speed of Black and White faces that appeared to be moving toward them, greater intergroup anxiety was associated with judging Black targets as moving more slowly relative to White target

Law and Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted to the President\u27s Bioethics Commission

President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement, published here, containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent can the capacity of neurotechnologies to aid in the administration of criminal justice be enhanced through research?; and 3) in what additional ways might important ethical issues at the intersection of neuroscience and criminal justice be addressed

Law and Neuroscience: Recommendations Submitted to the President\u27s Bioethics Commission

President Obama charged the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to identify a set of core ethical standards in the neuroscience domain, including the appropriate use of neuroscience in the criminal-justice system. The Commission, in turn, called for comments and recommendations. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience submitted a consensus statement, published here, containing 16 specific recommendations. These are organized within three main themes: 1) what steps should be taken to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to make sound decisions regarding the admissibility and weight of neuroscientific evidence?; 2) to what extent can the capacity of neurotechnologies to aid in the administration of criminal justice be enhanced through research?; and 3) in what additional ways might important ethical issues at the intersection of neuroscience and criminal justice be addressed

G2i Knowledge Brief: A Knowledge Brief of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience

Courts are daily confronted with admissibility issues – such as in cases involving neuroscientific testimony – that sometimes involve both the existence of a general phenomenon (i.e., “G”) and the question of whether a particular case represents a specific instance of that general phenomenon (i.e., “i”). Unfortunately, courts have yet to carefully consider the implications of “G2i” for their admissibility decisions. In some areas, courts limit an expert’s testimony to the general phenomenon. They insist that whether the case at hand is an instance of that phenomenon is exclusively a jury question, and thus not an appropriate subject of expert opinion. In other cases, in contrast, courts hold that expert evidence must be provided on both the group-data issue (i.e., that the phenomenon exists) and what is called the “diagnostic” issue (i.e., that this case is an instance of that phenomenon). Consequently, the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience has prepared this knowledge brief to help courts manage the G2i divide. Specifically, we recommend that courts first determine whether proffered expert testimony concerns only the existence of the general phenomenon or instead concerns both that and the diagnosis that a particular case represents an instance of that phenomenon. Only after making that determination should the court make its admissibility decision (guided, for instance, by the Daubert factors for admitting scientific evidence)