Week 5 Social Neuroscience and Intergroup Relations Discussion Post Respond in one or more of the following ways: Ask a probing question. Share an insight

Week 5 Social Neuroscience and Intergroup Relations Discussion Post Respond in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question.
Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
Offer and support an opinion.
Validate an idea with your own experience.
Make a suggestion.
Expand on your colleague’s posting.

Please view the example before you start!
Please include at least one references in the response.
10%-18% tips will be given to excellent work!

?? Post 1: Write a 50-100 words response to the post below:
Social Neuroscience, and Intergroup Relations

When discussing social neuroscience, in the context of social processes, this approaches refers to the the study of the brain (Amodio, 2008). One of the strengths of the use of social neuroscience is understanding implicit race bias and intergroup response regulation via sociocognitive substrates. The second strength of social neuroscience in intergroup relations is that the social neuroscience approach aids in the reduction of prejudice.
The limitations of the social neuroscience approach of intergroup relations is that the problems and phenomena within social psychology cannot be fixed with social neuroscience (Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008). The second limitations of the social neuroscience approach of intergroup relationships is the over-interpretation of of social neuroscience findings due to lack of familiarity with enthusiasm or measures to “embrace convergent scientific findings” (Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008, p. 252).

I believe that social neuroscience will be influential in the way individuals hold themselves accountable for responsibility and choice in intergroup relationships. The important word here is “accountability”. There is a possibility that the social neuroscience approach does have a role in the a person’s behavior, but it should not be a substitute for a person holding themselves accountable for the sense of personal responsibility and choice in intergroup relations.

References:

Amodio, D. M. (2008). The social neuroscience of intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 1–54. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Dovidio, J. F., Pearson, A. R., & Orr, P. (2008). Social psychology and neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or a healthy marriage? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(2), 247–263. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

?? Post 2: Write a 50-100 words response to the post below:

Social Neuroscience and Social Change

Neuroscience can provide a very positive impact on intergroup relations because it can paint a picture as to what parts of the brain are engaged when an individual is dealing with any form of relation in a social situation. The impact it can have on the understanding of the science can be very important. Neuroscience can help individuals with PTSD as it shows the researcher what parts of the brain become engaged when they encounter a trigger, it demonstrates that the amygdala shines bright during the test which is the center for fear (Hughes, & Shin, 2011). This process can also be useful when attempting to understand social intergroup relations, as a researcher can see whether relating to someone outside or even in the group triggers what portions of the brain. This would be the primary reason as to why neuroscience is a tool that should be used during this process to help scientist identify what emotional response the brain plays in that interaction. By understanding this treatments can be developed to assist in managing and changing that brain chemistry or the response that is produced by the brain.

References

Hughes, K. C., & Shin, L. M. (2011). Functional neuroimaging studies of post-traumatic stress disorder. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 11(2), 275–285. doi:10.1586/ern.10.198 Predicting Behavior During Interracial
Interactions: A Stress and Coping Approach
Sophie Trawalter
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Jennifer A. Richeson
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
J. Nicole Shelton
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
The social psychological literature maintains unequivocally that interracial contact is stressful. Yet research
and theory have rarely considered how stress may shape
behavior during interracial interactions. To address this
empirical and theoretical gap, the authors propose a
framework for understanding and predicting behavior
during interracial interactions rooted in the stress and
coping literature. Specifically, they propose that individuals often appraise interracial interactions as a threat,
experience stress, and therefore cope—they antagonize,
avoid, freeze, or engage. In other words, the behavioral
dynamics of interracial interactions can be understood
as initial stress reactions and subsequent coping responses.
After articulating the framework and its predictions for
behavior during interracial interactions, the authors
examine its ability to organize the extant literature on
behavioral dynamics during interracial compared with
same-race contact. They conclude with a discussion of
the implications of the stress and coping framework for
improving research and fostering more positive interracial contact.
Keywords: intergroup interactions, prejudice, stress and coping, nonverbal behavior
A
s the racial demographics of the United States
continue to shift, interracial contact is becoming
increasingly frequent. Indeed, it is projected that, by
2050, White Americans will no longer compose the
racial majority group in the United States, making interracial interactions virtually inevitable for many individuals (Feagin & O’Brien, 2004). Although increases in
interracial contact will undoubtedly have positive effects
on intergroup attitudes in the long term (see Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2007), considerable research suggests that
increased contact across racial lines may also come with
a host of negative consequences, at least in the short
term. For instance, examinations of relatively brief interracial encounters have revealed that White individuals
often feel anxious, self-conscious, and uncomfortable
during interracial interactions (Crocker, Major, & Steele,
1998; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Moreover, recent
work has found that interpersonal interactions with
members of racial minority groups can induce a state of
physiological threat in some White individuals
(Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell,
2001; Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002;
Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008).
Similarly, research has shown that the psychological
and physiological health of racial minorities may be
compromised by interracial contact with Whites. There
is considerable research documenting Black individuals’
anecdotal accounts of racism and prejudicial responses
Authors’ Note: This article was written, in part, while the first author
was a postdoctoral fellow at Cells to Society: The Center on Social
Disparities and Health at the Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern
University.
Corresponding Author: Sophie Trawalter, Department of Psychology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 3270 Davie Hall,
Chapel Hill, NC 27599. Email: trawalt@email.unc.edu
PSPR, Vol. 13 No. 4, November 2009 243-268
DOI: 10.1177/1088868309345850
© 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
243
244?? PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
during interactions with Whites (Essed, 1991; Feagin,
1992), and, consequently, some Blacks feel anxious
about and during interactions with Whites (Clark,
Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; Crocker et al.,
1998; Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002; MendozaDenton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002).
Like other stressors, these experiences with race-related
stressors can yield negative cardiovascular outcomes
(for reviews, see Clark et al., 1999; Harrell, Hall, &
Taliaferro, 2003; Mays, Cochran, & Barnes, 2006). For
instance, studies have shown that self-reported history
of experienced racism (Clark, 2000), exposure to racially
provocative movie scenes (Armstead, Lawler, Gorden,
& Cross, 1989), and perceived racial mistreatment
(Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001) significantly
and positively predict cardiovascular reactivity among
Black individuals. Considered in tandem, these two lines
of research suggest that interracial interactions can be a
source of stress for both Whites and racial minorities.
Despite these two lines of work, research has rarely
considered how the stress associated with interracial contact may shape behavioral dynamics during interracial
encounters (cf. Blascovich, Mendes, & Seery, 2002;
Mendes, Blascovich, Hunter, Lickel, & Jost, in press;
Olson & Fazio, 2007). Instead, research has largely
examined differences in behavior during interracial
compared to same-race interactions, assuming that
racial biases result in and are revealed by negative
behavior. Although this approach has been fruitful, the
findings regarding who will display negative behaviors
during interracial contact, and when, are equivocal at
best. Sometimes, White and Black individuals behave
anxiously; for instance, they fidget during interracial
interactions (McConnell & Leibold, 2001; Shelton,
2003). At other times, individuals avoid their interaction partners by creating interpersonal distance and
averting their gaze (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams,
1995; Fugita, Wexley, & Hillery, 1974; Goff, Steele, &
Davies, 2008; Ickes, 1984; Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum,
Pura, & Ariely, 2006; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).
And still at other times, individuals behave extremely
positively during interracial interactions (Hyers & Swim,
1998; Hofmann, Gschwendner, Castelli, & Schmitt,
2008; Ickes, 1984; Mendes & Koslov, 2009; Shelton,
2003; Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005; Shelton,
Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005; Vorauer &
Turpie, 2004). Adding further complexity to these
behavioral dynamics, many White individuals exhibit
both positive and negative behaviors during interracial
contact. Specifically, their nonverbal behaviors are negative whereas their verbal behaviors are positive (Dovidio,
Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002).
Research on individual differences has not been able
to provide a unified theoretical account for the wide
range of behaviors that individuals display during interracial contact (for a similar critique, see Dovidio, Hebl,
Richeson, & Shelton, 2006; Olson & Fazio, 2007). It
has not been able to explain why behavior during interracial interactions is sometimes positive and engaged
whereas, at other times, it is negative and withdrawn.
Some work finds that the behavior of low-bias Whites
is more positive than that of high-bias Whites during
interracial contact (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson,
Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Fazio et al., 1995; McConnell
& Leibold, 2001). Other work finds just the opposite;
that is, some work finds that the behavior of high-bias,
compared to low-bias, Whites is more positive during
interracial contact (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, &
Trawalter, 2005). Similarly, research on Whites’ concerns about appearing prejudiced and behavior during
interracial contact has yielded mixed results. In some
studies, concerns about appearing prejudiced result in
positive behavior (Shelton, 2003), whereas in other
studies concerns about appearing prejudiced can result
in negative behavior (Plant, 2004; Plant & Devine,
2003; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). Thus, the primary goal
of the present work is to offer a framework that can
contribute a theoretical grounding to make sense of
these divergent findings.
Specifically, we propose that the stress and coping
literature may provide a useful framework for understanding and predicting how individuals are likely to
behave during interracial interactions. Given the extant
research documenting intergroup anxiety with both
self-report and physiological measures, it certainly seems
reasonable to consider the extent to which the behaviors individuals display during interracial interactions
reflect stress reactions and coping responses to these
encounters. In support of this claim, we first review
Lazarus’s (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) wellknown model of psychological stress and coping. Then,
we present an adapted version of Lazarus’s model that
pertains to stress and coping during interracial compared to same-race interactions. In the bulk of the article, we review the literature on interracial contact. We
consider the extent to which existing data are consistent
with the claims of the framework that individuals app­
raise interracial contact as a threat, experience stress,
and subsequently cope via engagement, antagonism,
avoidance, or freezing to reduce this stress. This literature review provides post hoc evidence for the utility of
a stress and coping framework for understanding and
predicting behavior during interracial interactions. Last,
we propose future directions for research based on the
predictions of the model and discuss some of the implications of this approach for the dynamics of interracial
contact. We believe that, by adopting a stress and coping approach, research on interracial contact will have
Trawalter et al.?? 245
new leverage from which to make predictions as well as
new avenues for interventions to promote positive interracial contact experiences.
Overlap With Previous Models of
Interracial Contact
Although our approach has not previously been fully
articulated, it is not completely novel. Blascovich and
colleagues have argued for the relevance of threat in
shaping individuals’ psychological motivational states
and subsequent physiological reactivity during interracial
interactions (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al.,
2002). Most of this work, however, has focused on the
perspective of White majority group members, and the
focus has not squarely been on behavioral dynamics.
Hence, the present work seeks to build on this perspective, extending and modifying it to understand the vast
array of behavior often displayed during interracial
interactions. Similarly, recent reviews in the social
stigma literature have adopted a stress and coping
framework to understand stigmatized group members’
responses to intergroup contact (e.g., Major & O’Brien,
2005; Miller & Kaiser, 2001). These reviews, however,
have focused on the enduring experience of stigma,
across time and social interactions. As Major and
O’Brien (2005) noted, “[They] were unable to review
several important areas of research, such as . . . the
impact of stigma on social interactions” (p. 394). The
present work thus builds on this perspective, examining
how stigmatized group members’ stress during intergroup contact shapes their behavior during these social
interactions. Because nonstigmatized group members
(i.e., Whites) are also susceptible to stress during intergroup contact, we also consider how they may cope
in the face of intergroup contact (also see Shelton,
Richeson, & Vorauer, 2006). In short, the proposed
work seeks to marry and extend the theoretical and
empirical work of Blascovich and Major to provide a
framework for understanding the behavior of majority
and minority group members during interracial contact;
for although these two perspectives are clearly complimentary, they have not been formally integrated.
Moreover, although these two perspectives have implications for behavior during intergroup contact, both
stop short of articulating how stress and coping with
intergroup contact shape the behavioral dynamics of
such encounters.
In this article, we also forward an alternative to (and
extension of) the individual differences approach to the
study of intergroup behavior. We believe that our understanding of the behavioral dynamics of interracial contact will benefit from greater attention to and incorporation
of the stress and coping literature, as the work of
Blascovich and Major suggests. To that end, in the next
section we offer a brief review of research on stress and
coping before outlining an adapted model in the subsequent section that applies more directly to the case of
interracial contact. We then use this adapted model for
understanding and predicting behavior during interracial interactions.
Psychological Stress and Coping
Richard Lazarus and colleagues developed a model
of psychological stress and coping premised on the fact
that stress arises from “a particular relationship between
the person and the environment that is appraised by the
person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and
endangering his or her well-being” (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984, p. 19). According to this model, in other words,
the appraisal of the environment in relation to the self
is critical to the experience of stress. Because stress is
an aversive psychological state, individuals are motivated to reduce it (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus,
1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, individuals use various coping strategies to manage their psychological stress.
Psychological stress. Since Lazarus’s (1966) original
formulation, most stress researchers have adopted his
transactional perspective on stress, recognizing the
importance of individuals’ appraisals of a potential stressor rather than the features of a stressor per se (Bernard
& Krupat, 1994; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Tomaka,
Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). According to this
perspective, when faced with a potential stressor, individuals make two types of cognitive appraisals: primary
and secondary appraisals.1 During primary appraisals,
individuals evaluate the demands of the potential stressor; they evaluate the stakes at hand. Primary appraisal
is tantamount to asking, “Is this important to my wellbeing or to the well-being of a relevant other (e.g., a
loved one)?” At this stage, individuals’ primary appraisals can result in one of three appraisals: irrelevant,
benign, or stress appraisals. If the potential stressor is
deemed to be irrelevant or to have only benign or good
outcomes, individuals do not experience psychological
stress. They are not motivated to cope. If, instead, the
potential stressor could result in negative outcomes, then
individuals experience stress and go on to secondary
appraisals to cope with the stressor.
During secondary appraisals, individuals evaluate
their resources to cope with the stressor. Resources can
be physical and/or psychosocial so long as they facilitate
one’s ability to change the situation, mitigate negative
outcomes, and/or generate positive outcomes. Secondary
appraisal is tantamount to asking, “What resources do
I have to deal with this stressor?” Perceived resources
246?? PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
refine individuals’ appraisals of the stressor (i.e., their
primary appraisals). If individuals perceive the demands
of the stressor as exceeding their available resources,
then they expect harm; they appraise the stressor as a
threat. If individuals perceive their resources as exceeding the demands of the stressor, however, they expect
gains (e.g., growth and development). They appraise the
stressor as a challenge.
Coping. Similar to research on psychological stress,
contemporary research on coping has also adhered to
Lazarus and colleagues’ original formulation. Lazarus
and Folkman (1984) defined coping as “constantly
changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage
external and/or internal demands that are appraised as
taxing or exceeding resources of the person” (p. 141).
Coping involves the effortful self-regulation of emotion,
cognition, behavior, and/or physiology as well as the
regulation of the environment to diminish psychological
stress (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, &
Wadsworth, 2001; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1997;
Koolhaas et al., 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Skinner, 1995). Coping responses can thus be differentiated from stress reactions in at least two ways. First,
coping responses are goal directed; they serve to manage and reduce stress reactions. Second, coping responses
require self-regulation; accordingly, coping responses
are resource demanding (e.g., Muraven & Baumeister,
2000), whereas stress reactions are not (Compas et al.,
2001).2
Although there has been a proliferation of research
on coping during the past 40 years, this proliferation
has led to little consensus regarding the ways in which
people typically cope with stress. In fact, a recent review
of the coping literature reported more than 400 discrete
ways of coping (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood,
2003). As mentioned in the previous section, coping
responses to stressful situations are inherently tied to
the specific demands of the situation and the resources
available to individuals. Consequently, there indeed
could be infinite ways of coping with the infinite variations of stressors. Individuals’ responses to a stressor
such as chronic pain (e.g., cancer, AIDS, serious injury)
or past traumatic life events (e.g., divorce, rape, natural
disaster) are likely to differ from the ways in which they
cope with the stress associated with an ongoing interpersonal interaction. Individuals are not able to seek
professional help during the course of an interpersonal
interaction, for example.
Nevertheless, a careful review of the coping literature
does offer guidance regarding the “ways of coping” that
individuals are most likely to employ during stressful
interpersonal interactions. Bio-behavioral approaches
have outlined broad categories of behavioral coping
resp­onses that are relevant to coping with stressful
interpersonal interactions (e.g., Cannon, 1929, 1932;
Engel & Schmale, 1972; Frijda, 1986; Gallup & Maser,
1977; Henry, 1992; Koolhaas et al., 1999; Marks,
1987; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, & Gruenewald, 2000).
These approaches maintain that humans have an evolved
capacity to detect threats in their environment and
coordinate their responses to those threats depending
on the severity of the threat and the availability of
resources (e.g., Gray, 1988). Specifically, stress engenders primary action tendencies to (a) fight, (b) flight, (c)
freeze, or (d) “tend and befriend” (Taylor et al., 2000).
Interestingly, these action tendencies are strikingly similar to the four coping responses originally formulated by
Lazarus (1966), coping responses he also termed “directaction tendencies.” Specifically, Lazarus identified four
direct-action tendencies: (a) attack, (b) avoid, (c) inactivity, and (d) positive actions to increase one’s coping
resources, corresponding loosely to fight, flight, freeze,
and “tend and befriend,” respectively. In the context of
interpersonal interactions, for our purposes, we call these
action tendencies (a) antagonism, (b) avoidance, (c) freezing, and (d) positive engagement, respectively (for similar
responses to ostracism, see Williams, 2009; for three of
these four responses to threatened belonging, see Smart
Richman & Leary, 2009).
According to Lazarus’s original formulation, which
coping response is generated depends on a number of
factors, including (a) the appraisal of the stressor as a
potential threat or challenge to the self or a relevant
other such as loved one and (b) the extent to which
resources are available. When individuals appraise their
resources as meeting or slightly exceeding the demands of
the interaction, they feel challenged rather than threatened (also see Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al.,
2002; Tomaka et al., 1993). Challenged individuals
typically feel able to “manage” stressful encounters,
and, consequently, they engage in planful problem solving to increase their resources. In other words, they
approach the challenge as an opportunity for growth
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1966; Tomaka et
al., 1993)….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment