Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Differences Correspond with Attention to the Eyes of White Versus Black Faces

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Black, relative to White, individuals have experienced discrimination for centuries in the United States. Recent work suggests that subtle differences in how novel Black faces are initially perceived relate to prejudicial behavior. One such difference is that non-Black people attend more to the eyes of White versus Black novel faces. The present study sought to better characterize this difference by assessing how distinct individual differences widely shown to relate to prejudicial behavior—internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS), external motivation to respond without prejudice (EMS), and implicit race bias—relate to disparities in attending to the eyes of novel Black and White faces. Participants viewed novel Black and White faces one at a time on the right or left side of the display. Replicating a race-based disparity in visual attention to the eyes, non-Black perceivers fixated more on the eyes of White in comparison to Black faces. Individual differences among perceivers corresponded with the extent of this race-based disparity. IMS had a negative relationship with a race-based disparity in attention to the eyes, such that higher levels of IMS among perceivers corresponded with lower disparities in attention. Implicit race bias had a positive relationship with this disparity, such that higher levels of implicit race bias among perceivers corresponded with higher disparities in attention. Together, these findings illustrate that two individual differences known to affect prejudicial behavior are associated with preferential gaze patterns in visual attention toward faces on the basis of race.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Initial concerns about the trustworthiness and dominance tasks were 1) that participants would be less attentive in the second task, thereby reducing the quality of their data, and 2) that making one type of evaluation first could influence the second evaluation, which would reduce the validity of the second task among susceptible perceivers. Moreover, the literature on race disparities on attention to the eyes has primarily used novel faces, meaning only data from the first task would capture such initial attention to faces as they could only be novel in their first appearance. To inform our analytic plan, we addressed these concerns one month into data collection.

    To address if participants attended more to faces in the first versus the second task, we compared the number of fixations on faces and the total time fixating in the first versus the second task. Suggesting less attention, participants had fewer fixations in the second (M = 773.89, SD = 266.99) versus the first (M = 857.96, SD = 199.45) task, t(27) = 2.52, p = .02. Also suggesting less attention, participants spent less time (ms) fixating on faces in the second (M = 242,395.83, SD = 74,595.48) versus the first (M = 268,039.29, SD = 51,485.34) task, t(27) = 2.56, p = .02.

    To address if evaluations of one trait might influence evaluations of the second, we subjected trait ratings to a 2 (Order: trustworthiness first and dominance second, dominance first and trustworthiness second) × 2 (Trait: trustworthiness, dominance) × 2 (Target Race: Black, White) mixed ANOVA. Emerging were main effects of trait, F(1, 26) = 22.77, p < .001, η 2p  = .17 and of race, F(1, 26) = 15.23, p = .001, η 2p  = .37, and a Trait × Race interaction, F(1, 26) = 17.42, p < .001, η 2p  = .40. Qualifying these effects was the critical Order × Trait × Race interaction, F(1, 26) = 4.19, p = .05, η 2p  = .14. People rated White faces as more dominant when dominance was rated first (M = 3.83, SD = .65) versus second (M = 3.34, SD = .56), t(26) = 2.04, p = .05. People did not rate Black faces on dominance differently when dominance was rated first (M = 4.44, SD = .62) versus second (M = 4.65 SD = .79), t(26) = .87, p = .40. People rated Black faces as marginally less trustworthy when trustworthiness was rated first (M = 3.36, SD = .65) versus second (M = 3.75, SD = .46), t(26) = 1.85, p = .07. People did not rate White faces on trustworthiness differently when trustworthiness was rated first (M = 3.78, SD = .74) versus second (M = 3.73, SD = .77), t(26) = .17, p = .87. This initial evidence in at least some participants raised the possibility that order influenced the second evaluation of faces, reducing the validity of the trait manipulation. Coupled with evidence of less attention to faces in the second task and with the fact that initial attention to faces could only be captured when faces were novel, we restricted analyses of the full sample of 73 participants to the first task.

  2. Analyses were restricted to the first task due to evidence suggesting poorer data quality in the second task. Exploratory analyses collapsing across both tasks did in part support hypotheses despite poorer data quality (e.g., the AOI × Race interaction on proportion of gaze).

  3. Potential IMS, EMS, and IAT-D effects were of theoretical interest to examine on attention to the eyes of White versus Black faces. Although not of theoretical interest, we also regressed the difference in gaze proportion to the noses of White versus Black faces on IAT-D scores, IMS, and EMS. This model was non-significant, F(3, 69) = .58, p = .63, R = .16 R2 = .02. A model regressing the difference in gaze proportion to the mouths of White versus Black faces on IAT-D scores, IMS, and EMS was also non-significant, F(3, 69) = .67, p = .57, R = .17, R2 = .03.

References

  • Adams, R., & Kleck, R. (2003). Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. Psychological Science, 14, 644–647.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., & Kleck, R. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., Rule, N., Franklin, R., Jr., Wang, E., Stevenson, M., Yoshikawa, S., et al. (2009). Cross-cultural reading the mind in the eyes: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amodio, D., Devine, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 60–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Jolliffe, T. (1997). Is there a “language of the eyes?” Evidence from normal adults, and adults with autism or asperger syndrome. Visual Cognition, 4, 311–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, C., Jack, R., Scheepers, C., Fiset, D., & Caldara, R. (2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS ONE, 3, e3022.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brosch, T., Bar-David, E., & Phelps, E. (2012). Implicit race bias decreases the similarity of neural representations of Black and White faces. Psychological Science, 24(2), 160–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C., & White, T. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A., Rock, M., & Norton, M. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, P., Plant, E., Amodio, D., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 835–848.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D., Langner, O., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Ethnic out-group faces are biased in the prejudiced mind. Psychological Science, 19(10), 978–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02186.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 510–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischen, A., Bayliss, A., & Tipper, S. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goff, P., Eberhardt, J., Williams, M., & Jackson, M. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 292–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goff, P., Jackson, M., Di Leone, B., Culotta, C., & DiTomasso, N. (2014). The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526–545.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldinger, S., He, Y., & Papesh, M. (2009). Deficits in cross-race face learning: Insights from eye movements and pupilometry. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1105–1122.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Green, A., Carney, D., Pallin, D., Ngo, L., Raymond, K., Iezzoni, L., et al. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(9), 1231–1238.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A., Nosek, B., & Banaji, M. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B., Rakhshan, P., Ho, A., & Pannasch, S. (2015). Looking at others through implicitly or explicitly prejudiced eyes. Visual Cognition, 5, 612–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J., Williams, C., & Falk, R. (2005). Eye movements are functional during face learning. Memory & Cognition, 33, 98–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawakami, K., Williams, A., Sidhu, D., Choma, B., Rodriguez-Bailon, R., Canadas, E., et al. (2014). An eye for the I: Preferential attention to the eyes of ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 1–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khalid, S., Deska, J., & Hugenberg, K. (2016). The eyes are the windows to the mind: Direct eye gaze triggers the ascription of others’ minds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1666–1677.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Correll, J., & Cloutier, J. (2016). The impact of motivation on race-based impression formation. NeuroImage, 124, 1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M., Hood, B., & Macrae, C. (2004). Look into my eyes: Gaze direction and person memory. Memory, 12, 637–643.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M., Tatkow, E., & Macrae, C. (2005). The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16, 236–239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mays, V., Cochran, S., & Barnes, N. (2007). Race, race-based discrimination, and health outcomes among African Americans. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 201–225.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, A., & Leibold, J. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 435–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, G., Gollwitzer, P., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhof, N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannasch, S., Schulz, J., & Velichkovsky, B. (2011). On the control of visual fixation durations in free viewing of complex images. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1120–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflugshaupt, T., Mosimann, U., von Wartburg, R., Schmitt, W., Nyffeler, T., & Muri, R. (2005). Hypervigilance-avoidance pattern in spider phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 105–116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plant, E., & Devine, P. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, E., Devine, P., & Peruche, B. (2010). Routes to positive interracial interactions: Approaching egalitarianism or avoiding prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1135–1147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richeson, J., Todd, A., Trawalter, S., & Baird, A. (2008). Eye-gaze direction modulates race-related amygdala activity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, D., & Anderson, J. (2001). Automated eye-movement protocol analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 16(1), 39–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, D., Sokol-Hessner, P., Banaji, M., & Phelps, E. (2011). Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7710–7715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, W., Boniecki, K., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K., Jackson, L., et al. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1242–1254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, A., Pakrashi, M., & Oosterhof, N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27, 813–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trawalter, S., Todd, A., Baird, A., & Richeson, J. (2008). Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1322–1327.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. (2017). Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 59–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Rule, N. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1325–1331.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, J., Sacco, D., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, E., Laeng, B., & Magnussen, S. (2012). Through the eyes of the own-race bias: Eye-tracking and pupilometry during face recognition. Social Neuroscience, 7, 202–216.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Stephanie Miljkovic and Isaiah Innis for research assistance. Brittany Cassidy received funding from National Institute on Aging (Grant No. F32AG051304).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 296 Eberhart, PO Box 26180, Greensboro, NC, 27412, USA

    Brittany S. Cassidy

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Samuel M. Harding, Kristie Y. Hsu & Anne C. Krendl

Authors
  1. Brittany S. Cassidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel M. Harding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristie Y. Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne C. Krendl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brittany S. Cassidy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cassidy, B.S., Harding, S.M., Hsu, K.Y. et al. Individual Differences Correspond with Attention to the Eyes of White Versus Black Faces. J Nonverbal Behav 43, 435–449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00308-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00308-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation