Abstract
The classification of individuals into different racial groups provides a precondition for racial bias in cognition and behaviour, but how the brain enables spontaneous racial categorization is not fully understood. Here using multimodal brain imaging measures, including electroencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography, we probe the neural dynamics of racial categorization by quantifying the repetition suppression of neural responses to faces of different individuals of each racial group (that is, Asian, black or white). We show that categorization of other-race faces engages early two-stage dynamic activities in neural networks consisting of multiple interactive brain regions. Categorization of same-race faces, however, recruits a different and simple network in a later time window. Dynamic neural activities involved in racial categorization predict racial biases in face recognition and altruistic intention. These results suggest that there are distinct neural dynamics by which the brain sorts people into different racial groups as a social ground for cognition and action.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
The code used to analyse the data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request
References
Pager, D. & Shepherd, H. The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34, 181–209 (2008).
Goyal, M. K., Kuppermann, N., Cleary, S. D., Teach, S. J. & Chamberlain, J. M. Racial disparities in pain management of children with appendicitis in emergency departments. JAMA Pediatr. 169, 996–1002 (2015).
Anwar, S., Bayer, P. & Hjalmarsson, R. The impact of jury race in criminal trials. Q. J. Econ. 127, 1017–1055 (2012).
Wetts, R. & Willer, R. Privilege on the precipice: perceived racial status threats lead White Americans to oppose welfare programs. Soc. Forces 97, 793–822 (2018).
Meissner, C. A. & Brigham, J. C. Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Pub. Policy Law 7, 3–35 (2001).
Baron, A. S. & Banaji, M. R. The development of implicit attitudes: evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychol. Sci. 17, 53–58 (2006).
McConnell, A. R. & Leibold, J. M. Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37, 435–442 (2001).
Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X. & Han, S. Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. J. Neurosci. 29, 8525–8529 (2009).
Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A. & Aglioti, S. M. Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Curr. Biol. 20, 1018–1022 (2010).
Han, S. Neurocognitive basis of racial ingroup bias in empathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 400–421 (2018).
Ge, L. et al. Two faces of the other-race effect: recognition and categorisation of Caucasian and Chinese faces. Perception 38, 1199–1210 (2009).
Qian, M. K. et al. Implicit racial biases in preschool children and adults from Asia and Africa. Child Dev. 87, 285–296 (2016).
Sheng, F. & Han, S. Manipulations of cognitive strategies and intergroup relationships reduce the racial bias in empathic neural responses. NeuroImage 61, 786–797 (2012).
Sheng, F., Han, X. & Han, S. Dissociated neural representations of pain expressions of different races. Cereb. Cortex 26, 1221–1233 (2016).
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. & Kurzban, R. Perceptions of race. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 173–179 (2003).
Kawakami, K., Amodio, D. M. & Hugenberg, K. Intergroup perception and cognition: an integrative framework for understanding the causes and consequences of social categorization. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 55, 1–80 (2017).
Gallagher, C. In Theories of Race and Ethnicity (eds Murji, K. & Solomos, J.) 40–56 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Levin, D. T. Race as a visual feature: using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 559–574 (2000).
Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J. & Sacco, D. F. The categorization-individuation model: an integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychol. Rev. 117, 1168–1187 (2010).
Ito, T. A. & Urland, G. R. Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 616–626 (2003).
Ito, T. A. & Urland, G. R. The influence of processing objectives on the perception of faces: an ERP study of race and gender perception. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 5, 21–36 (2005).
Kubota, J. T. & Ito, T. A. Multiple cues in social perception: the time course of processing race and facial expression. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 738–752 (2007).
Ito, T. A. & Bartholow, B. D. The neural correlates of race. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 524–531 (2009).
Wiese, H. The role of age and ethnic group in face recognition memory: ERP evidence from a combined own-age and own-race bias study. Biol. Psychol. 89, 137–147 (2012).
Senholzi, K. B. & Ito, T. A. Structural face encoding: how task affects the N170’s sensitivity to race. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8, 937–942 (2013).
Lieberman, M. D., Hariri, A., Jarcho, J. M., Eisenberger, N. I. & Bookheimer, S. Y. An fMRI investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African–American and Caucasian–American individuals. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 720–722 (2005).
Phelps, E. A. et al. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 729–738 (2000).
Golby, A. J., Gabrieli, J. D., Chiao, J. Y. & Eberhardt, J. L. Differential responses in the fusiform region to same-race and other-race faces. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 845–450 (2001).
Richeson, J. A. et al. An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 1323–1328 (2003).
Iidaka, T., Nogawa, J., Kansaku, K. & Sadato, N. Neural correlates involved in processing happy affect on same race faces. J. Psychophysiol. 22, 91–99 (2008).
Cunningham, W. A. et al. Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychol. Sci. 15, 806–813 (2004).
Song, M. Introduction: who’s at the bottom? Examining claims about racial hierarchy. Ethnic Racial Stud. 27, 859–877 (2004).
Sadler, M. S., Correll, J., Park, B. & Judd, C. M. The world is not black and white: racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context. J. Soc. Issues 68, 286–313 (2012).
Gross, T. F. Own-ethnicity bias in the recognition of Black, East Asian, Hispanic, and White faces. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 31, 128–135 (2009).
Young, A. W. Faces, people and the brain: the 45th Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 569–594 (2018).
Kubota, J. T., Banaji, M. R. & Phelps, E. A. The neuroscience of race. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 940–948 (2012).
Grill-Spector, K., Henson, R. & Martin, A. Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 14–23 (2006).
Ringo, J. L. Stimulus specific adaptation in inferior temporal and medial temporal cortex of the monkey. Behav. Brain Res. 76, 191–197 (1996).
Vizioli, L., Rousselet, G. A. & Caldara, R. Neural repetition suppression to identity is abolished by other-race faces. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20081–20086 (2010).
Heisz, J. J., Watter, S. & Shedden, J. M. Automatic face identity encoding at the N170. Vis. Res. 46, 4604–4614 (2006).
Baillet, S. Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 327–339 (2017).
Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23, 1–73 (1990).
Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J. & Davies, P. G. Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 876–893 (2004).
Plant, E. A., Goplen, J. & Kunstman, J. W. Selective responses to threat: the roles of race and gender in decisions to shoot. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bullet. 37, 1274–1281 (2011).
Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K. & Rule, N. O. Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: from size to threat. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 113, 59–80 (2017).
Ha, S. E. & Jang, S. J. Immigration, threat perception, and national identity: evidence from South Korea. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 44, 53–62 (2015).
Maddox, K. B. & Gray, S. A. Cognitive representations of Black Americans: reexploring the role of skin tone. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bullet. 28, 250–259 (2002).
Hayward, W. G., Rhodes, G. & Schwaninger, A. An own-race advantage for components as well as configurations in face recognition. Cognition 106, 1017–1027 (2008).
Rossion, B. & Gauthier, I. How does the brain process upright and inverted faces? Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 1, 63–75 (2002).
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G. & Buchner, A. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191 (2007).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988).
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480 (1998).
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A. & Banaji, M. R. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 197–216 (2003).
Han, S. et al. Empathic neural responses to others’ pain are modulated by emotional contexts. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 3227–3237 (2009).
Barth, F. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Waveland Press, 1998).
Quinn, P. C., Lee, K. & Pascalis, O. Perception of face race by infants: five developmental changes. Child Dev. Perspect. 12, 204–209 (2018).
Byatt, G. & Rhodes, G. Identification of own-race and other-race faces: implications for the representation of race in face space. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 11, 735–741 (2004).
Stolier, R. M. & Freeman, J. B. Functional and temporal considerations for top-down influences in social perception. Psychol. Inq. 27, 352–357 (2016).
Freeman, J. B. & Johnson, K. L. More than meets the eye: split-second social perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 362–374 (2016).
Kanwisher, N. & Yovel, G. The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361, 2109–2128 (2006).
Rice, G. E., Lambon Ralph, M. A. & Hoffman, P. The roles of left versus right anterior temporal lobes in conceptual knowledge: an ALE meta-analysis of 97 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb. Cortex 25, 4374–4391 (2015).
Mitchell, J. P., Heatherton, T. F. & Macrae, C. N. Distinct neural systems subserve person and object knowledge. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15238–15243 (2002).
Amodio, D. M. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 670–682 (2014).
Binder, J. R. & Desai, R. H. The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 527–536 (2011).
Gilbert, S. J., Swencionis, J. K. & Amodio, D. M. Evaluative vs. trait representation in intergroup social judgments: distinct roles of anterior temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia 50, 3600–3611 (2012).
Van Overwalle, F. Social cognition and the brain: a meta‐analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 829–858 (2009).
Van der Cruyssen, L., Heleven, E., Ma, N., Vandekerckhove, M. & Van Overwalle, F. Distinct neural correlates of social categories and personality traits. NeuroImage 104, 336–346 (2015).
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M. & Wittenbrink, B. The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1314–1329 (2002).
Wiese, H., Kaufmann, J. M. & Schweinberger, S. R. The neural signature of the own-race bias: evidence from event-related potentials. Cereb. Cortex 24, 826–835 (2012).
Michel, C., Caldara, R. & Rossion, B. Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces. Vis. Cog. 14, 55–73 (2006).
Hughes, B. L. et al. Neural adaptation to faces reveals racial outgroup homogeneity effects in early perception. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14532–14537 (2019).
Nestor, A., Plaut, D. C. & Behrmann, M. Unraveling the distributed neural code of facial identity through spatiotemporal pattern analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9998–10003 (2011).
Freeman, J. B., Schiller, D., Rule, N. O. & Ambady, N. The neural origins of superficial and individuated judgments about ingroup and outgroup members. Hum. Brain Mapp. 31, 150–159 (2010).
Stolier, R. M. & Freeman, J. B. Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 795–797 (2016).
Strohminger, N. et al. The MR2: a multi-racial, mega-resolution database of facial stimuli. Behav. Res. Methods 48, 1197–1204 (2016).
Ma, D. S., Correll, J. & Wittenbrink, B. The Chicago face database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behav. Res Methods 47, 1122–1135 (2015).
Valentine, T. & Endo, M. Towards an exemplar model of face processing: the effects of race and distinctiveness. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 44, 671–703 (1992).
Johnston, R. A., Kanazawa, M., Kato, T. & Oda, M. Exploring the structure of multidimensional face-space: the effects of age and gender. Vis. Cogn. 4, 39–57 (1997).
Semlitsch, H. V., Anderer, P., Schuster, P. & Presslich, O. A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology 23, 695–703 (1986).
Luck, S. J. & Gaspelin, N. How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology 54, 146–157 (2017).
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E. & Knutsson, H. Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7900–7905 (2016).
Xia, M., Wang, J. & He, Y. BrainNet Viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLoS One 8, e68910 (2013).
Tadel, F., Baillet, S., Mosher, J. C., Pantazis, D. & Leahy, R. M. Brainstorm: a user-friendly application for MEG/EEG analysis. Comput. Intel. Neurosci. 8, 879716 (2011).
Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 164, 177–190 (2007).
Blanco-Elorrieta, E., Emmorey, K. & Pylkkänen, L. Language switching decomposed through MEG and evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9708–9713 (2018).
Blanco-Elorrieta, E. & Pylkkänen, L. Bilingual language switching in the laboratory versus in the wild: the spatiotemporal dynamics of adaptive language control. J. Neurosci. 37, 9022–9036 (2017).
Fischl, B. et al. Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 14, 11–22 (2004).
Desikan, R. S. et al. An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. NeuroImage 31, 968–980 (2006).
Barnett, L. & Seth, A. K. The MVGC multivariate Granger causality toolbox: a new approach to Granger-causal inference. J. Neurosci. Methods 223, 50–68 (2014).
Seth, A. K. A MATLAB toolbox for Granger causal connectivity analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 186, 262–273 (2010).
Iwasaki, M., Noguchi, Y. & Kakigi, R. Neural correlates of time distortion in a preaction period. Hum. Brain Mapp. 40, 804–817 (2019).
Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.11-11 (2015).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (projects 31661143039, 31421003 and 31871134). The authors thank J. Sheng, S. Shu, Z. Liu, L. Liu, X. Tian, H. Luo, N. Ding and J. Gao for technical assistance and D. Pfabigan for proofreading the manuscript. The funder had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.H. and Y.Z. conceived the research programme and designed the experiments. Y.Z., T.G., T.Z., W.L., T.W., X.H. and S.H. carried out the experiments. Y.Z., X.H. and S.H. analysed the data. S.H. and Y.Z. wrote the paper. S.H. supervised the entire work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Primary handling editor: Mary Elizabeth Sutherland.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Statistical results of P2 and N2 amplitudes in experiment 1A.
aNote: Effect size is indexed as the partial eta-squared value. The 90% CIs are reported for partial eta-squared values.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Statistical results of P2 and N2 amplitudes in experiment 1B.
aNote: Effect size is indexed as the partial eta-squared value. The 90% CIs are reported for partial eta-squared values.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Statistical results of P2 and N2 amplitudes in experiment 2.
aNote: Effect size is indexed as the partial eta-squared value. FG: Face gender. The reported for partial eta-squared values.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Statistical results of P2 and N2 amplitudes in experiment 3.
aNote: Effect size is indexed as the partial eta-squared value. FG: Face gender. The reported for partial eta-squared values.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Statistical results of P2 and N2 amplitudes in experiment 4.
aNote: Effect size is indexed as the partial eta-squared value. FG: Face gender. The reported for partial eta-squared values.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Model structures and results of the DCM analysis in experiment 5a.
(a) Illustration of individual models in the DCM model space. The models were different in the region that driving vision input were assigned to and the intrinsic connectivity between regions. Only the intrinsic connectivity between brain regions and the driving visual input were plotted. The modulation effect of on each intrinsic connectivity and the intrinsic connectivity within each regions of the single models were omitted. (b) The exceedance probabilities of single models of Black and White faces. Model 2 marked inside the red square had the highest exceedance probability for both Black and White faces. (c) Strength of the intrinsic and modulatory connectivity estimated based on Model 2 for Black and White faces, respectively. Repetition of Black faces significantly modulated within-region connectivity in both mPFC and PCC (N=53; mPFC to mPFC: t(52) = −3.06, p = 0.003, Cohen’s D = 0.42, 95% CI = −0.27, −0.06, PCC to PCC : t(52) = −3.34, p = 0.002, Cohen’s D = 0.46, 95% CI = −0.12, −0.03) and between-region connectivity from mPFC to PCC (t(52) = 6.12, p < 0.001, Cohen’s D = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.60). By contrast, repetition of White faces only significantly modulated within- region connectivity for PCC (t(52) = −2.10, p = 0.041, Cohen’s D = 0.29, 95% CI = −0.06, −0.001). *p<0.05,** p<0.01,*** p<0.001.
Extended Data Fig. 7
RTs and accuracies (mean ± SD) in experiment 6.
Extended Data Fig. 8
Results of MEG sensor-space signals in experiment 6. The left panel shows the magnetometer sensors that showed the strongest neural responses at 140–200 ms across all conditions (p <0.05, FDR corrected). The middle panel shows mean MEG responses over these sensors to OR-faces and SR-faces. The right bar charts illustrate the mean RS effects in sensor-space MEG signals (Alt-Cond > Rep-Cond) by showing quartiles (boxes), means (square inside boxes), medians (horizontal lines inside boxes), maximum and minimum excluding outliers(whiskers), and outliers (diamonds). ANOVAs of the mean sensor-space magnetic responses at 140–200 ms confirmed a larger RS effect for OR-(collapsing Black and White faces) than SR- (Asian) faces (N=26; F(1,25) = 6.663, p = 0.016, ηp = 0.210, 90% CI = 0.02, 0.41).
Extended Data Fig. 9 MEG results of ROI analyses in experiment 6.
Based on our fMRI results, we predicted stronger RS effects on source-space signals in PCC to OR- than SR-faces. To test this, we extracted time courses of MEG signals in the PCC (3/-67/25) identified in our fMRI results (shown in the left panel) and compared the RS effects (that is. Alt-Cond vs. Rep-Cond) between OR-faces and SR-faces at each time points. Cluster based permutation tests (one-tailed) were conducted across time points using a priori cluster threshold p < 0.025, 10,000 iterations. This test yielded a significant cluster showing greater RS effect for OR-faces than SR-faces at 266–305 ms in PCC (N=26; cluster p = 0.028), as illustrated in the middle and right panels. a.u.= arbitrary unit.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Coupling between neural categorization of OR-faces and racial biases in cognition and altruistic intension in experiment 6.
(A)The time course of Spearman rank correlations between RS of LFG (yellow line) and LATL (blue line) activity and false alarm rates during face recognition. Correlations were calculated point-by-point at 140–200 ms. Significant correlations were observed at 170- 185 ms for LFG activity and at 187–200 ms for LATL activity (p < 0.05, FDR corrected). Averaged RS effects on LFG (170–185 ms) and LATL (187–200 ms) activities predicted false alarms during recognition of Black (vs. Asian) faces (N=22; LFG: r = 0.570, p = 0.010, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.83; LATL: r = 0.554, p = 0.010, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.87, FDR corrected). (C) Averaged RS effects on LFG (170–185 ms) and LATL (187- 200 ms) activities predicted false alarms during recognition of Black faces (LFG: r = 0.435, p = 0.043, 95% CI = 0, 0.76; LATL: r = 0.428, p = 0.047, 95% CI = −0.06, 0.75, uncorrected).
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods 1, Supplementary Results 1–3, Supplementary Figs. 1–9 and Supplementary Tables 1–9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, Y., Gao, T., Zhang, T. et al. Neural dynamics of racial categorization predicts racial bias in face recognition and altruism. Nat Hum Behav 4, 69–87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0743-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0743-y
This article is cited by
-
Asymmetric cognitive learning mechanisms underlying the persistence of intergroup bias
Communications Psychology (2024)
-
Understanding racial bias through electroencephalography
BMC Psychology (2023)
-
Global research on artificial intelligence-enhanced human electroencephalogram analysis
Neural Computing and Applications (2022)
-
Electrophysiological correlates of unconscious processes of race
Scientific Reports (2021)