Race-based biases in judgments of social pain

Social Class and Social Pain: Target SES Biases Judgments of Pain and Support for White Target Individuals

Social pain, defined as distress caused by negative interpersonal experiences (e.g., ostracism, mistreatment), is detrimental to health. Yet, it is unclear how social class might shape judgments of the social pains of low-socioeconomic status (SES) and high-SES individuals. Five studies tested competing toughness and empathy predictions for SES's effect on social pain judgments. Consistent with an empathy account, in all studies (Ncumulative = 1,046), low-SES White targets were judged more sensitive to social pain than high-SES White targets. Further, empathy mediated these effects, such that participants felt greater empathy and expected more social pain for low-SES targets relative to high-SES targets. Social pain judgments also informed judgments of social support needs, as low-SES targets were presumed to need more coping resources to manage hurtful events than high-SES targets. The current findings provide initial evidence that empathic concern for low-SES White individuals sensitizes social pain judgments and increases expected support needs for lower class White individuals.

The impact of sufferers' wealth status on pain perceptions: Its development and relation to allocation of healthcare resources

Wealth-based disparities in health care wherein the poor receive undertreatment in painful conditions are a prominent issue that requires immediate attention. Research with adults suggests that these disparities are partly rooted in stereotypes associating poor individuals with pain insensitivity. However, whether and how children consider a sufferer's wealth status in their pain perceptions remains unknown. The present work addressed this question by testing 4- to 9-year-olds from the US and China. In Study 1 (N = 108, 56 girls, 79% White), US participants saw rich and poor White children experiencing identical injuries and indicated who they thought felt more pain. Although 4- to 6-year-olds responded at chance, children aged seven and above attributed more pain to the poor than to the rich. Study 2 with a new sample of US children (N = 111, 56 girls, 69% White) extended this effect to judgments of White adults' pain. Pain judgments also informed children's prosocial behaviors, leading them to provide medical resources to the poor. Studies 3 (N = 118, 59 girls, 100% Asian) and 4 (N = 80, 40 girls, 100% Asian) found that, when evaluating White and Asian people's suffering, Chinese children began to attribute more pain to the poor than to the rich earlier than US children. Thus, unlike US adults, US children and Chinese children recognize the poor's pain from early on. These findings add to our knowledge of group-based beliefs about pain sensitivity and have broad implications on ways to promote equitable health care. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Four studies examined whether 4- to 9-year-old children's pain perceptions were influenced by sufferers' wealth status. US children attributed more pain to White individuals of low wealth status than those of high wealth status by age seven. Chinese children demonstrated an earlier tendency to attribute more pain to the poor (versus the rich) compared to US children. Children's wealth-based pain judgments underlied their tendency to provide healthcare resources to people of low wealth status.

Does dispositional preference for solitude predict better psychological outcomes during times of social distancing? Beliefs and reality

OBJECTIVE

People value solitude for themselves. Yet little is known about how people perceive dispositional preference for solitude in others. Does dispositional preference for solitude represent a protective factor from psychological distress during times of social distancing? And do laypeople have accurate beliefs about the role of preference for solitude?

METHOD

To answer these questions, we conducted four studies (three preregistered, Ntotal  = 1418) at the early and a later stage of the COVID-19 pandemic using experimental, longitudinal, and experience sampling designs.

RESULTS

People expected targets with a higher solitude preference to be more resilient (e.g., less lonely, more satisfied with life) during social distancing, and consequently prioritize them less when allocating supportive resources for maintaining social connections (Studies 1 and 2). Compared to these beliefs, the actual difference between individuals with higher versus lower solitude preference was smaller (Study 2) or even negligible (Study 3). Did people form more calibrated beliefs two years into the pandemic? Study 4 suggested no.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, these studies show that people overestimate the role of preference for solitude in predicting others' psychological experience. As a result, solitude-seeking individuals may miss out on supportive resources, leading to higher risks for mental health issues.

Biased Beliefs About White Releasees' Sensitivity to Social Pain

The accurate perception of others' pain is a prerequisite to provide needed support. However, social pain perception is prone to biases. Multiple characteristics of individuals bias both physical and social pain judgments (e.g., ethnicity and facial structure). The current work extends this research to a chronically stigmatized population: released prisoners (i.e., releasees). Recognizing the large United States releasee rates and the significant role support plays in successful re-integration, we conducted four studies testing whether people have biased judgments of White male releasees' sensitivity to social pain. Compared with the noncriminally involved, people judged releasees as less sensitive to social pain in otherwise identical situations (Studies 1a-3), an effect that was mediated by perceived life hardship (Study 2). Finally, judging releasees' as relatively insensitive to social pain undermined perceivers' social support judgments (Study 3). The downstream consequences of these findings on re-integration success are discussed.

Why Do People Think Individuals in Poverty Are Less Vulnerable to Harm?: Testing the Role of Intuitions About Adaptation

People often falsely believe that individuals from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are less harmed than those from higher SES backgrounds by a wide range of negative events. We report three studies (total N = 1,625) that provide evidence that this "thick skin bias" emerges at least in part because people overgeneralize otherwise accurate intuitions about adaptation. Across studies, participants accurately intuited that people adapt to psychophysical experiences (e.g., brightness, weight, and volume) but also inaccurately intuited that people similarly adapt to life hardships that actually tend to exacerbate the harm of future negative events. Experimentally decreasing the salience of psychophysical adaptation intuitions reduced the thick skin bias, suggesting a causal link between these adaptation intuitions and the belief that people in poverty are less vulnerable to harm and underlining the importance of studying how biased beliefs about the effects of poverty may perpetuate inequality.

Race-based biases in psychological distress and treatment judgments

Racism creates and sustains mental health disparities between Black and White Americans and the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing harassment directed at Black Americans has exacerbated these inequities. Yet, as the mental health needs of Black Americans rise, there is reason to believe the public paradoxically believes that psychopathology hurts Black individuals less than White individuals and these biased distress judgments affect beliefs about treatment needs. Four studies (two pre-registered) with participants from the American public and the field of mental health support this hypothesis. When presented with identical mental illnesses (e.g., depression, anxiety, schizophrenia), both laypeople and clinicians believed that psychopathology would be less distressing to Black relative to White individuals. These distress biases mediate downstream treatment judgments. Across numerous contexts, racially-biased judgments of psychological distress may negatively affect mental healthcare and social support for Black Americans.

Perceived racial discrimination and polysubstance use among racial/ethnic minority adolescents in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Polysubstance use among adolescents is a significant public health concern, yet most studies on adolescent substance use focus on a singular substance. This study is one of the first to investigate the association between perceived racial discrimination (PRD) in school and polysubstance use among racial/ethnic minority adolescents using a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

Data was from the 2021 Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey. The sample included 4145 racial/ethnic minority adolescents (52.8% female). Hierarchical binary logistic regression was used to examine the association between PRD in school and polysubstance use among racial/ethnic minority adolescents.

RESULTS

About 12% of racial/ethnic minority adolescents engaged in polysubstance use and 23.4% reported experiencing PRD in school sometimes/most of the time/always. Controlling for other factors, experiencing PRD in school sometimes/most of the time/always was associated with 1.52 times higher odds of polysubstance use when compared to adolescents who never experienced PRD in school (OR=1.52, p=.044, 95% CI=1.01-2.30). Cyberbullying victimization, symptoms of depression, and being emotionally abused by a parent during COVID-19 were also associated with polysubstance use.

CONCLUSION

Controlling for demographic characteristics and psychosocial stressors, PRD in school was significantly associated with higher odds of polysubstance use among racial/ethnic minority adolescents. The findings of this study could inform clinicians and policymakers of the association between PRD in school and polysubstance use, which could contribute to early identification of polysubstance use among racial/ethnic minority adolescents.

(Not) part of the team: Racial empathy bias in a South African minimal group study

Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) research suggests that recategorization with an arbitrarily defined group may be sufficient to override empathy biases among salient social categories like race. However, most studies utilizing MGPs do not consider sufficiently the socio-historical contexts of social groups. Here we investigated whether the recategorization of White participants into arbitrarily defined mixed-race teams using a non-competitive MGP would ameliorate racial empathy biases towards ingroup team members in the South African context. Sixty participants rated their empathic and counter-empathic (Schadenfreude, Glückschmerz) responses to ingroup and outgroup team members in physically painful, emotionally distressing, and positive situations. As anticipated, results indicated significant ingroup team biases in empathic and counter-empathic responses. However, mixed-race minimal teams were unable to override ingroup racial empathy biases, which persisted across events. Interestingly, a manipulation highlighting purported political ideological differences between White and Black African team members did not exacerbate racial empathy bias, suggesting that such perceptions were already salient. Across conditions, an internal motivation to respond without prejudice was most strongly associated with empathy for Black African target individuals, regardless of their team status. Together, these results suggest that racial identity continues to provide a salient motivational guide in addition to more arbitrary group memberships, even at an explicit level, for empathic responding in contexts characterized by historical power asymmetry. These data further problematize the continued official use of race-based categories in such contexts.

Perceiving People With Physical Disabilities as Overcoming Adversity Warps Mind Perception

Across six studies, we tested how people with physical disabilities were ascribed mental faculties. People with physical disabilities were seen as more capable of mental agency (e.g., thinking), but not more capable of experience (e.g., pain), compared to nondisabled people (Study 1). People with physical disabilities were also seen as more capable of supernatural mental agency (e.g., seeing the future, reading minds; Study 2). Believing that people with physical disabilities were more mentally agentic than nondisabled people was unrelated to Beliefs in a Just World (Study 3) but was related to beliefs about hardship (Study 4). Narratives of overcoming adversity, common in portrayals of the disabled community, increased the perceived mental sophistication of people with physical disabilities (Study 5). Finally, hardship narratives also affected helping behavior toward people with physical disabilities (Study 6). Thus, hardship stories surrounding individuals with disabilities may contribute to beliefs that they have particularly sophisticated minds.

Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges

Despite our many differences, one superordinate category we all belong to is 'humans'. To strip away or overlook others' humanity, then, is to mark them as 'other' and, typically, 'less than'. We review growing evidence revealing how and why we subtly disregard the humanity of those around us. We then highlight new research suggesting that we continue to blatantly dehumanize certain groups, overtly likening them to animals, with important implications for intergroup hostility. We discuss advances in understanding the experience of being dehumanized and novel interventions to mitigate dehumanization, address the conceptual boundaries of dehumanization, and consider recent accounts challenging the importance of dehumanization and its role in intergroup violence. Finally, we present an agenda of outstanding questions to propel dehumanization research forward.

Race, social pain minimization, and mental health

People often believe Black individuals experience less social pain and require less social support to cope with distress than White individuals (e.g., Deska, Kunstman, Lloyd, et al., 2020). However, researchers have not tested whether biases in third-person pain judgments translate to first-person experiences with social pain minimization. For example, do Black individuals feel their social pain is underrecognized to a greater extent than White individuals? The current work tested whether Black individuals felt their social pain was minimized more than White individuals and if the experience of social pain minimization was related to worse mental health and greater life stress. Data from two cross-sectional, correlational studies provide initial support for these predictions ( Ntotal = 1,501). Black participants felt their social pain was minimized more than White participants and this race difference in social pain minimization was associated with worse mental health and greater life stress. These results suggest that Black individuals feel their pain is underrecognized and this experience of social pain minimization is related to worse mental health outcomes.