Given the evolutionary significance of survival, the mind might be particularly sensitive (in terms of strength and speed of reaction) to stimuli that pose an immediate threat to physical harm. To rectify limitations in past research, we pilot-tested stimuli to obtain images that are threatening, nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral. Three studies revealed that participants (a) were faster to detect a threatening than nonthreatening-negative image when each was embedded among positive or neutral images, (b) oriented their initial gaze more frequently toward threatening than nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images, and (c) evidenced larger startle-eyeblinks to threatening than to nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images. Social-psychological implications for the mind's sensitivity to threat are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

The Dual Implicit Process Model (March et al., 2018b) distinguishes the implicit processing of physical threat (i.e., "Can it hurt or kill me?") from valence (i.e., "Do I dislike/like it?"). Five studies tested whether automatic anti-Black bias is due to White Americans associating Black men with threat, negative valence, or both. Studies 1 and 2 assessed how quickly White participants decided whether positive, negative, and threatening images were good versus bad when primed by Black versus White male-faces. Studies 3 and 4 assessed how early in the decision process White participants began deciding whether Black and White (and, in Study 3, Asian) male-faces displaying anger, sadness, happiness, or no emotion were, in Study 3, dangerous, depressed, cheerful, or calm or, in Study 4, dangerous, negative, or positive. Study 5 assessed how quickly White participants decided whether negative and threatening words were negative versus dangerous when primed by Black versus White male-names. All studies indicated that White Americans automatically associate Black men with physical threat. Study 3 indicated the association is unique to Black men and did not extend to Asian men as a general intergroup effect. Studies 3, 4, and 5, which simultaneously paired threat against negativity, indicated that the Black-threat association is stronger than a Black-negative association.

Racial and ethnic biases often manifest without awareness. The underlying causes of these attitudes are not fully understood. While outgroup bias is well studied, ingroup bias has received far less attention. We examined ingroup biases among Hispanic women and outgroup biases toward Hispanics among White (Caucasian non-Hispanic) females using the startle eyeblink paradigm, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), and an explicit self-report measure. Hispanic and White male faces were used as exemplars during both the startle task and the IAT. A similar pattern of results were observed for indirect measures: both groups displayed startle and IAT responses indicative of negative attitudes toward Hispanic male faces relative to White male faces, although less so for Hispanic participants. Combined groups correlational analyses revealed a significant positive relationship between startle eyeblink amplitude and subtle subscale bias scores. However, no relationships were found between any measures when groups were examined separately. The comparable pattern of startle and IAT results suggests that in spite of the likelihood that these measures index different aspects of attitudes and tap into different processes, inter and intragroup biases are manifested similarly. The finding of negative ingroup biases among Hispanic females is consistent with system justification theory, which posits that members of devalued groups internalize negative stereotypes about their ingroup. This study extends startle eyeblink research of intergroup racial biases, while also expanding this line of research to intragroup biases. In doing so, these results add to our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying the persistent nature of stereotypes.