Coordinated Roles of Motivation and Perception in the Regulation of Intergroup Responses: Frontal Cortical Asymmetry Effects on the P2 Event-related Potential and Behavior

Abstract

Abstract■ Self-regulation is believed to involve changes in motivation and perception that function to promote goal-driven behavior. However, little is known about the way these processes interact during the on-line engagement of self-regulation. The present study examined the coordination of motivation, perception, and action control in White American participants as they regulated responses on a racial stereotyping task. Electroencephalographic indices of approach motivation (left frontal cortical asymmetry) and perceptual attention to Black versus White faces (the P2 event-related potential) were assessed during task performance. Action control was modeled from task behavior using the process-dissociation procedure. A pattern of moderated mediation emerged, such that stronger left frontal activity predicted larger P2 responses to race, which in turn predicted better action control, especially for participants holding positive racial attitudes. Results supported the hypothesis that motivation tunes perception to facilitate goal-directed action. Implications for theoretical models of intergroup response regulation, the P2 component, and the relation between motivation and perception are discussed. ■

Rapid social perception is flexible: approach and avoidance motivational states shape P100 responses to other-race faces

“…Instead, this research adds to a growing literature demonstrating that motivational processes can influence the most automatic aspects of social perception and evaluation (e.g., Cunningham et al, 2005;Amodio, 2010). Additionally, this research adds to the literature suggesting that motivational relevance can determine whether top-down processes will override automatic, bottom-up perceptual and attentional effects Van Bavel et al, 2008).…”

“…Although they likely differ in important ways, both waveforms are related to early attentional processing (Bentin et al, 1996;Clark and Hilyard, 1996) as well as face processing (e.g., Liu et al, 2002;Herrmann et al, 2005). Moreover, a recent study found that people with greater left alpha asymmetries in the prefrontal cortex-a correlate of approach motivation-had different ERP responses to Black (versus White) faces on the P2, which peaked approximately 170 ms following stimulus presentation (Amodio, 2010). In that study, P2 responses to Black faces were also associated with decreased racial bias on an implicit measure of racial stereotypes.…”

Seeing Race: N170 Responses to Race and Their Relation to Automatic Racial Attitudes and Controlled Processing

“…For example, in a study using the shooter task, in which outgroup members may be perceived as threatening, Correll, Urland, and Ito (2006) found that the P2 ERP component, peaking ∼180 msec and associated with early attentional processes, was larger to outgroup than ingroup faces and that a larger race effect was associated with a pattern of stronger racial bias in behavior. Using a different task, in which outgroup faces provided cues to engage control, Amodio (2010) found larger P2 component amplitudes to outgroup versus ingroup faces. But in this task, in which Black faces provided a cue for control, larger P2 amplitudes to Black than White faces predicted better behavioral control on a stereotyping task among low-prejudice participants.…”

“…We also examined the effects of race perception on controlled processing. Past research has shown that participantsʼ goals in a task can modulate whether attention to race impairs (Amodio, 2009;Lambert et al, 2003) or promotes (Amodio, 2010;Mendoza, Gollwitzer, & Amodio, 2010;Monteith, 1993) response control. In this study, we manipulated participantsʼ concern about responding with racial prejudice during the task by alerting some participants to the fact that the task assessed racial associations (although all responses were made privately).…”

“…2 This method for examining patterns of automatic and controlled processes in behavior has been used successfully in several previous studies (e.g., Amodio, 2010;Huntsinger, Sinclair, & Clore, 2009;Stewart, von Hippel, & Radvansky, 2009;Payne, 2001).…”