In Your Face
Studying the Influence of Group Membership on the Emotional Processing of Insults
by Carina Thönnes
Student number: 10165916
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Marte Otten
Table of Contents
1.0 Abstract...1
2.0 Introduction...2
3.0 Method...4
4.0 Results...7
5.0 Discussion & Conclusion...9
6.0 References...13
Abstract
A recent study showed that the context of an insult plays an important factor in how insults are processed. This study investigates whether group membership influences the emotional processing of insults. Participants were reading insults and compliments from white Dutch (ingroup) and Moroccan (outgroup) males. Insults and compliments were about personality or appearance of the participant and not related to group membership. Event-related potentials showed no difference on the LPP component (associated with emotional processing) when insults and compliments from ingroup and outgroup members were compared with each other. Furthermore, insults were not processed differently from compliments as suggested in a previous study. Results and limitations are discussed in the context of future research.
Studying the Influence of Group Membership on the Emotional Processing of Insults
Group membership can play an important role in how comments are perceived. An incident on Dutch TV showed how a slip of the tongue coming from a white person can be perceived as a racist attack by a black person. In this case, football and tv personality Johan Derksen mixed up two existing expressions in Dutch. He referred to Dutch Surinamese politician Sylvana Simons'
behavior as “trots als een aapje” (“proud as a monkey”), where he should have used either “trots als een paauw” (“proud as a peacock”) or “apetrots” (“monkeyproud”)(“Sylvana: aapje-uitspraak,” n.d.). As the comparison between blacks and monkeys is part of a racist history of dehumanization, it is a very sensitive issue where group membership plays an important factor. When looking at insults that are directed at a personal level without attacking someone's race or ethnicity, it is unclear whether group membership could influence the emotional intensity of the insults.
A large number of studies has shown that race and associated stereotypes can bias people's perception of behavior (e.g. Correll et al., 2007; Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Gilliam, Maupin, Reyes, Accavitti, & Shic, 2016; Skiba, Eckes, & Brown, 2010; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002) and emotion recognition (Bijlstra, Holland, Dotsch, Hugenberg, & Wigboldus, 2014; Bijlstra, Holland, & Wigboldus, 2010; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003) of the outgroup, but when looking at the context of insults, studies on group membership mainly focused on the reaction after being insulted. When being insulted by a single member of an outgroup, it causes people to perceive other members of the outgroup as negative as well (Ensari et al., 2004). In the study by Ensari et al., (2004), participants were instructed to read and memorize interviews from various outgroup members (gays, Afro-Americans, students from other departments and graduate levels). The interview contained sentences that were insulting the ingroup of the participant and were mostly about social and academic performance and appearance (example: “Most undergraduates are purposeless”). Results showed that participants were less likely to choose another member of the outgroup in a subsequent discussion task if they had been insulted in the first task by a member of this group. This shows that the insults clearly have an effect on the evaluation of other outgroup members, but whether the group membership of the insulter already affects the processing of insults is still unclear and will be investigated in the current study.
From an evolutionary perspective it could be hypothesized that people are more vigilant to attacks from the outgroup than from the ingroup as the outgroup formed a threat to survival (Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2011). An fMRI study by Molenbergh, Gapp, Wang, Louis, & Decety, (2014) indeed revealed that our brain reacts differently according to which group the attacker belongs to. The left orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which has been linked to social and moral
behavior in the past (Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1999), showed the biggest activity when ingroup members were attacked by outgroup members, compared to ingroup
members being attacked by ingroup members and outgroup members being attacked by ingroup or outgroup members. Molenbergh et al., (2014) therefore concluded that people are more sensitive to harm inflicted by outgroup members. Although a physical attack is different from an insult, it could still be an indication for different patterns of insult processing between the ingroup and the
outgroup. It could therefore be hypothesized that an insult, which is a form of verbal attack, could be processed with more emotional attention than insults from ingroup members.
Processing of insults
An objective, noninvasive approach to measure the emotional processing of insults is an electroencephalogram (EEG). Just recently, Otten, Mann, Jos, van Berkum, & Jonas (2016) compared the emotionality of written plain insults and compliments with insults and compliments that were accompanied by laughter. By averaging the EEG and time-locking it to stimulus events, event-related potentials (ERPs) are created which are used to analyze stages of information
processing (Taylor & Baldeweg, 2002). The study by Otten et al, (2016) revealed that the context of the sentences had different outcomes for the amplitude of the Late Positive Component (LPP) of the ERP. The LPP is a component of the ERP that is most apparent around 400 – 600 ms (Schupp, Flaisch, Stockburger, & Junghöfer, 2006) and can persist up to 1000 ms after stimulus onset (Hajcak & Olvet, 2008). High LPP amplitudes are thought to reflect an increased attention to emotional pictures (Hajcak, Dunning, & Foti, 2009), and to emotional (negative and positive) words compared to neutral words (Frühholz, Jellinghaus, & Herrmann, 2011; Herbert, Junghofer, & Kissler, 2008; Hinojosa, Méndez-Bértolo, & Pozo, 2010; Hajcak, Macnamara, & Olvet, 2010; León, Díaz, Vega, & Hernández, 2010; Schacht & Sommer, 2009).
In Otten's study, insults evoked a larger LPP than compliments, and insults that were accompanied by laughter evoked a larger and longer lasting LPP than insults without laughter. The same approach will be used in the current study to investigate whether outgroup insults are
processed differently from ingroup insults. Ingroup/outgroup will be manipulated by presenting the insults along with pictures from Moroccan and white males. As the pictures could be distracting and therefore interfere with the processing of the insults, a control condition with compliments is added. Compliments are also added to investigate if the effect found by Otten et al., (2016) could be
replicated. Based on previous research by Otten et al., (2016) we expected insults to evoke increased LPP amplitudes compared to compliments. It is predicted that insults that are
that are presented with a picture of an ingroup member. In the outgroup condition, the difference between insults and compliments is expected to be bigger than the difference between insults and compliments in the ingroup condition.
Methods
Participants
Participants were recruited via word-of-mouth recommendation to participate in the 1.5-hour experiment. Forty-four participants completed the study. The data of 34 participants (13 men, 21 women, mean age 22.7, SD = 4.2) were analyzed as 10 participants were excluded from the analysis (three because of missing markers, seven because too many channels had bad signals). Psychology students of the University of Amsterdam received study credit for their participation. Exclusion criteria were mental disorders (due to the negative emotional content of the stimuli) and dyslexia (as the main task consisted of reading words that appeared on the screen in a quick manner). The
participants consisted of 26 native Dutch and eight German participants with very good proficiency in Dutch. The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the Department of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. All participants provided informed consent in order to take part in the experiment.
Stimuli
Stimuli consisted of 56 insults and 56 compliments. Some sentences were used from the set of stimuli from Otten's study (2016), some sentences were added with a reference to
power/weakness as one researcher was interested in the effect of different kinds of insults. Sentences were in Dutch and were directed at the participant directly. Examples are: “You are so lazy and useless” (insult) and “Every time you say something, I realize how smart you are” (compliment). Sentence length was on average the same for insults and compliments (Minsult = 9.7
SDinsult = 2.4, compliments: Mcompliments = 9.6, SDcompliment = 3.0). The critical word was selected as
the first insulting or the first complimenting word in the sentence. On average, the critical words had the same position in insults and compliments (Minsult = 6.3, SDinsult = 2.2, Mcompliment = 6.3,
SDcompliment = 2.6) and never appeared at the end of the sentence. Word length of the critical word
was comparable in both conditions (Minsult = 8.3, SDinsult = 3.5, Mcompliment = 7.7, SDcompliment = 2.7).
Procedure
The design was a 2x2 within subject design, with Sentence Message (2 levels: insults,
compliments) * Group Membership (2 levels: ingroup, outgroup). Participants were given one block with insults and one block with compliments, consisting of 56 sentences each. Order of the blocks was randomized. Half of the sentences were presented with a picture and a name of an ingroup member (white), half of the stimuli were presented together with a picture and a name of an outgroup member (Moroccan). Six pictures of ingroup and outgroup members with a neutral expression were downloaded from the Radboud Faces Databank (Langner et al., 2010). Names represented typical Dutch or Moroccan names (an overview of names and pictures is added to the Supplementary Materials). Participant saw a picture together with a name and the instruction: “Karim Elhamdaoui (as an example for a Moroccan name) is saying to you” in the middle of the screen. The instruction was presented for 1700 ms. Then the name and instruction disappeared and the insulting or complimenting sentence appeared word for word on the screen. Half of the
sentences were addressing the participant with their name (“He Marte!”), which was presented on the screen for 900ms, the other half did not address the participants with his/her name. Presentation of words depended on the length of the words according to Variable Serial Visual Presentation (VSVP) procedure introduced by Otten, Nieuwland, & van Berkum (2007). Non-critical word duration consisted of a standard offset of 240 ms plus an additional 25 ms per letter. Duration of words preceding a comma (“,”) was 800ms. The last words of a sentence was presented for a fixed duration of 650 ms. The critical word had a fixed duration of 425 ms on the screen. Participants had to press a button to start the following sentence. They were instructed to blink at this point and not during sentence presentation.
Before the experiment and three times during each block (after the 14th, 28th and 42nd sentence in each block), participants were asked to rate their current emotional state ([“How angry are you now?”]), on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questionnaire contained five statements about negative feelings (angry, humiliated,
embarrassed, worthless, furious: “boos, vernederd, beschaamd, waardeloos, woedend”) and three positive items (cheerful, happy, grateful: “vrolijk, blij, dankbaar”) This was to check if compliments and insults were experienced as real. After the end of the first block, participants were given time to rest or to drink before continuing with the second block.
Manipulation Check
As participants were asked to rate their mood three times during each block, the scores of the first block and the last block were averaged, resulting in a score for the compliment condition
and one score for the insult condition. The scores on the pre-experiment questionnaire were calculated separately. A high score represented a bad mood, a low score indicated a good mood. Outliers were detected by calculating z-scores for each observation. An observation with a z-score above 3.29 (Field, 2009) was removed from the data.
Electrophysiological recording
Continuous EEG was recorded while participant completed the task using the Biosemi active-electrode system (Biosemi Inc., Amsterdam, The Netherlands). It included 64 + 2 electrodes (Fp1, AF7, AF3, F1, F3, F5, F7, FT7, FC5, FC3, FC1, T7, C5, C3, C1, TP7, CP5, CP3, CP1, P9, P7, P5, P3, P1, PO7, PO3, O1, Oz, Iz, POz, Pz, CPz, Fpz, Fp2, AF8, AF4, AFz, Fz, F2, F4, F6, F8, FT8, FC6, FC4, FC2, FCz, Cz, C2, C4, C6, T8, TP8, CP6, CP4, CP2, P2, P4, P6, P8, P10, PO8, PO4, O2 en CMS & DRL. To detect eye movements, two electrodes were placed under and next to the left eye, one electrode was placed next to the left eye, and one electrodes was placed next to the right eye. Two additional electrodes were placed on the left and right mastoid. EEG signal was amplified by a BioSemi ActiveTwo amplifier (-3dB at ~102Hz low-pass, fully DC coupled) and sampled at 512 Hz.
All data was re-referenced off-line to an average mastoid reference and filtered with a high pass frequency of 0.16 Hz. Blinks and other eye movements were removed from the data using gratton-coles algorithm (Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, 1983). Epochs were extracted for a period from 250 ms before stimulus onset until 1500 ms after the onset of the critical word. Signals were baseline-corrected by subtracting the mean amplitude in the 150 ms preceding word onset from the signal at all time points, segments with a signal above ± 100μV were removed. For each participant the trials were averaged separately for all conditions (ingroup insult, ingroup compliment, outgroup insult, and outgroup compliment). If more than three of the channels were marked as bad (less than 15 segments), the participant was excluded from the analysis. Mean amplitude in the LPP region (600-1200 ms) was exported for each participant. The LPP was then divided in an early window (600 - 900 ms) and a late window (900-1200 ms) (Brown, Steenbergen, Band, Rover, &
Nieuwenhuis, 2012; Otten et al., 2016).
Data analyses
Assumptions of normality were tested by Shapiro-Wilk test. Assumptions of sphericity were tested using Mauchly's test of sphericity. Effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated using formulas reported by Borenstein (2009, p. 228). Repeated Measures Analyses of Variances (ANOVA) were performed for the three scores on the mood questionnaire (manipulation check) to assess whether
reading insults and compliments had an effect on the participant's mood. Additional paired samples t-tests were performed to analyze the results of the ANOVA. For the main analysis, a 2x2 within subject Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted for both LPP time windows (early & late) for group membership (ingroup vs. outgroup) and sentence message (insult vs. compliment). F tests with more than one degree of freedom in the numerator are adjusted by means of the Greenhouse-Geisser correction where appropriate. Uncorrected degrees of freedom and corrected P-values are reported.
Results
Manipulation Check
The results of the questionnaire measuring participants' mood was tested for normality after outliers were removed. A Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the scores after receiving insults were not normally distributed D(32) = 0.88, p = .002. We can however assume normality and continue testing as sample size was >30 as supported by the central limit theorem (Field, 2009). Mauchly's test indicated a violation of sphericity (χ² (2) = 19.414, p < .001), therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.68) because Greenhouse-Geisser < .75 (Field, 2009). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for time F(1.355,41.993) = 13.67, p < .001, ηp2 =.306. A paired samples t-test revealed that after reading
insults, participants' mood worsened compared to their mood before the experiment, t(32) = -3.99, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.593. Reading the compliments had no effect on participant's mood compared with the pre-experiment measurement, t(32) = 1.57, p = .127, Cohen's d = 0.231. Another paired samples t-test revealed that participants felt significantly worse after reading insults compared to reading compliments, t(31)= -3.99, p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.806. Means and standard deviations are given in table 1.
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations on the Mood Questionnaire on all 3 measurements
Measurement M SD
Before 1.97 0.46
Compliments 1.84 0.37
ERP data
600 – 900 ms
There was no significant main effect for sentence message on the ERP between 600 and 900 ms,
F(1,33) = 0.91, p= .346, ηp2= .027. Group membership also had no significant main effect, F(1,33)
= 0.07, p = .800, ηp2= .002. The interaction between sentence message and group membership was
also not significant, F(1,33) = 0.42, p = .522, ηp2 = .013. An overview of means and standard error
is given in table 2.
Table 2.
Mean and Standard Error for all conditions
GM SM M SE
Ingroup Compliment 1.01 2.14
Insult 1.46 2.37
Outgroup Compliment 1.25 1.78
Insults 1.37 1.98
Note: GM = Group membership; SM = Sentence message; M = Mean; SE = Standard Error
900 – 1200 ms
Data was tested for normality and a Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the scores in the outgroup insult condition were not normally distributed, D(34) = 0.84, p < .001. We can however assume normality and continue testing as sample size was >30 as supported by the central limit theorem (Field, 2009). There was no significant main effect for sentence message on the ERP between 900 and 1200 ms,
F(1,33) = 0.08, p = .783, ηp2 = .002. Group membership also yielded no significant main effect,
F(1,33) = 2.06, p = .161, ηp2 = .059. The interaction between group membership and sentence
message was also not significant, F(1,33) = 2.72, p = .373, ηp2 = .024. An overview of means and
standard errors are given in table 3. An overview of the grand average of the ERP of two electrodes is given in Figure 1.
Table 3.
Mean and Standard Error for all conditions of the whole sample size (n=34)
GM SM M SE
Ingroup Compliment 0.54 2.48
Insult 0.90 2.54
Outgroup Compliment 1.32 1.83
Insults 1.12 2.17
Note: GM = Group membership; SM = Sentence message; M = Mean; SE = Standard Error.
Ingroup Outgroup
Figure 1. Shows the ERPs evoked by compliments (red lines) and insults (black lines) in the
outgroup condition (left column) and the ingroup condition (right column).
Discussion
emotional processing of insults. The results suggest that ingroup and outgroup insults were not processed differently from each other in the time window between 600 – 1200 ms. There was also no difference in processing between insults and compliments. As there were no previous studies on this topic, the hypothesis that group membership would influence the emotional processing of insults came from various studies that found negative biases in people's perception of outgroup behavior. In this study however, the processing of outgroup insults was not more intense than the processing of ingroup insults.
Although studies suggest that attacks from outgroup members could be processed with more moral sensitivity (Molenbergh et al., 2014) than ingroup attacks, this pattern was not found for the context of insults. Insults from an outgroup member have an effect on how the outgroup is
subsequently evaluated (Ensari et al., 2004), but the brain seems to make no difference in
processing ingroup and outgroup insults. It was hypothesized that an outgroup insult would be more emotional intense than an ingroup insult, but a study on social belongingness found that exclusion by (highly essentialized) ingroup members intensified the pain of being rejected compared to being excluded by an outgroup member (Bernstein, Sacco, Young, Hugenberg, & Cook, 2010). When transferring this to the context of insults, it could mean that an insult from an ingroup member could have evoked a stronger emotional processing as the opinion of an ingroup member is seen as more valuable and important. But as no overall effect for group membership was found, it could be that the manipulation of ingroup/outgroup was not sufficient enough.
As we did not measure whether participants identified with the people who were presented together with the sentences, it is unclear to which extend participants though of the white faces as ingroup and the Moroccan faces as outgroup. Participants therefore should have been asked to rate their similarity with the presented faces in order to establish a better manipulation of group
membership. When however analyzing the data of the German sample separately, a difference between processing of ingroup and outgroup compliments, and outgroup compliment and outgroup insults was found (1). As the sample size was very small however, generalizing findings is difficult. The Germans were also tested in their second language, which could have influenced the intensity of the emotional processing of the sentences (Eilola & Havelka, 2010; Pavlenko, 2012). This effect could however not account for the fact that outgroup compliments elicited a much larger LPP effect than ingroup compliments. It is shown that stereotypes about certain groups negatively biases
1
In the 600 – 900 ms time window, outgroup compliments elicited a larger LPP than outgroup insults, t(7) = 3.89, p = .006, Cohen's d = 0.999, and a trend for a larger LPP of outgroup compliments compared to ingroup compliments, t(7) = -2.23, p = .061, Cohen's d = 1.056. In the 900 – 1200 ms time window, outgroup compliments elicited a significant higher LPP than outgroup insults t(7) = -2.48, p = .042, Cohen's d = 0.866. There was a trend for outgroup compliments to elicit an higher LPP than ingroup compliments, t(7) = -2.34, p = .052, Cohen's d = 1.214.
people's perception of behavior (Downey & Pribesh, 2004; Gilliam, Maupin, Reyes, Accavitti, & Shic, 2016; Skiba, Eckes, & Brown, 2010; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002), The small effect in the German sample could be explained by the fact that Germans did not have as much contact with their Moroccan peers as the Dutch students probably had. As Moroccans form the biggest minority group in Amsterdam (OIS Amsterdam, 2015), it is possible that many Dutch students had Moroccan classmates and friends in the past and consider them less as an outgroup than the German students. But more importantly, Moroccans in Dutch society have a negative connotation of being criminal (Vrooman, Gijsberts, & Boelhouwer, 2014). If the Germans did not have contact with Moroccans who could have dispelled this stereotype, they could be more likely to expect negative behavior from Moroccans as this would confirm the stereotype. When they then were getting compliments from Moroccans, which could be seen as stereotype violating behavior, they would pay more emotional attention to the compliments. This phenomena is called expectancy
violation. A study found that women received greater reward than men when helping in a masculine
situation (Taynor & Deaux, 1973). This shows that stereotype unexpected behavior is treated
differently from expected behavior. To further investigate whether this was a genuine effect, a study with more participants is necessary, which also measures stereotype associations by means of the implicit association task (IAT) to investigate whether there is a relationship between stereotypes and different patterns of processing of compliments and insults. Besides assessing how prejudiced participants are, it would also be important to assess how essential the group is for the identity of the participants and how similar they would rate themselves with the presented ingroup and outgroup members. Then, it would be clear whether participants really make a distinction between ingroup and outgroup.
Another suggestion for future studies would be to compare groups from different cultural backgrounds with each other. In this study, participants were exclusively non-Moroccan and insults came from white and Moroccan males. As studies have found differences in (emotional) reaction towards insults between members of honor and non-honor cultures (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996; Ijzerman & Cohen, 2011; Ijzerman, van Dijk, & Gallucci, 2007; Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002; Shafa, Harinck, Ellemers, & Beersma, 2014), it would be interesting to see whether the intensity of emotional reaction is linked to the intensity of emotional processing. It could be hypothesized that members from honor cultures also process insults with more emotional attention than members from non-honor cultures as they are also shown to exhibit a higher cortisol level than members from non-honor cultures when being insulted (Cohen et al., 1996). It would be interesting to research whether the rise of cortisol could correlate with the intensity of the emotional processing of the insults.
Another unexpected result was that there was no difference in the processing of insults and compliments, which is not in line with previous research by Otten et al., (2016). They found a larger LPP amplitude (between 600 - 900 ms) for insults compared to compliments. Some insults and compliments about weakness/power were added in the current study to the stimuli that were used by Otten et al., (2016). It could be possible that those compliment were perceived as sarcasm. Research showed that irony can also evoke a large late positivity (Regel, Gunter, & Friederici, 2011), which would therefore make the distinction between insults and compliments not clear enough. Although it was checked whether participants' mood changed after reading the compliments and the insults, it was not assessed how real they thought the insults and compliments were. We saw that reading insults led to a deterioration of participant's mood but reading the compliments did not improve participant's mood. This could be a sign for the fact that compliments were not perceived as really complimenting. It could also be that participant were already in a cheerful mood, so it would
therefore be important to check whether compliments were actually perceived as complimenting the participant.
Summarized, the results of the current study suggest that the intensity of emotional
processing is not dependent on the group membership of the insulter when insults are directed at an individual level. There is a small indication that compliments could be processed differently when coming from an unfamiliar or negatively associated outgroup member. Due to the difficulties of recreating social situations in the lab and due to the limitations of the study, more research is
References
Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R., (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature
Neuroscience, 2(11), 1032-1037. doi:10.1038/14833
Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., & Cook, E. (2010). Being "In" With the In-Crowd: The Effects of Social Exclusion and Inclusion Are Enhanced by the Perceived Essentialism of Ingroups and Outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(8), 999-1009. doi:10.1177/0146167210376059
Bijlstra, G., Holland, R. W., Dotsch, R., Hugenberg, K., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2014). Stereotype Associations and Emotion Recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 567-577. doi:10.1177/0146167213520458
Bijlstra, G., Holland, R. W., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2010). The social face of emotion recognition: Evaluations versus stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 657-663. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.006
Borenstein (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta analysis (pp. 221-237). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brown, S. B., Steenbergen, H. V., Band, G. P., Rover, M. D., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2012). Functional significance of the emotion-related late positive potential. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00033
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental ethnography.". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(5), 945-960. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.5.945
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., & Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1006-1023. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1006
Downey, D. B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When Race Matters: Teachers' Evaluations of Students' Classroom Behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267-282.
Eilola, T. M., & Havelka, J. (2011). Behavioural and physiological responses to the emotional and taboo Stroop tasks in native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 15(3), 353-369. doi:10.1177/1367006910379263
Ensari, N., Kenworthy, J. B., Urban, L., Canales, C. J., Vasquez, E., Kim, D., & Miller, N. (2004). Negative Affect and Political Sensitivity in Crossed Categorization: Self-Reports versus EMG. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 55-75.
doi:10.1177/1368430204039973
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles i.e. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Frühholz, S., Jellinghaus, A., & Herrmann, M. (2011). Time course of implicit processing and explicit processing of emotional faces and emotional words. Biological Psychology, 87(2), 265-274. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.03.008
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyer, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do Early Educators' Implicit Biases Regarding Sex and Race Relate to Behavior Expectations and
Recommendations of Preschool Expulsions and Suspensions? Yale University Child Study
Center.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468-484. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9
Herbert, C., Junghofer, M., & Kissler, J. (2008). Event related potentials to emotional adjectives during reading. Psychophysiology, 45(3), 487-498. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00638.x
Hinojosa, J. A., Méndez-Bértolo, C., & Pozo, M. A. (2010). Looking at emotional words is not the same as reading emotional words: Behavioral and neural correlates. Psychophysiology. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.00982.x
Hajcak, G., Dunning, J. P., & Foti, D. (2009). Motivated and controlled attention to emotion: Time-course of the late positive potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(3), 505-510.
doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2008.11.028
Hajcak, G., Macnamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-Related Potentials, Emotion, and Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129-155. doi:10.1080/87565640903526504
Hajcak, G., & Olvet, D. M. (2008). The persistence of attention to emotion: Brain potentials during aand after picture presentation. Emotion, 8(2), 250-255. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.250
Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14(6), 640-643. doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x
Ijzerman, H., & Cohen, D. (2011). Grounding cultural syndromes: Body comportment and values in honor and dignity cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 456-467.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.806
Ijzerman, H., van Dijk, W. W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A bumpy train ride: A field experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions. Emotion, 7(4), 869-875.
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.869
Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D.H.J., Hawk, S.T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition & Emotion,
24(8), 1377—1388. DOI: 10.1080/02699930903485076
León, I., Díaz, J. M., Vega, M. D., & Hernández, J. A. (2010). Discourse-based emotional consistency modulates early and middle components of event-related
potentials. Emotion, 10(6), 863-873. doi:10.1037/a0019983
Molenberghs, P., Gapp, J., Wang, B., Louis, W. R., & Decety, J. (2014). Increased Moral
Sensitivity for Outgroup Perpetrators Harming Ingroup Members. Cerebral Cortex, 26(1), 225-233. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu195
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2011). Human threat management systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(4), 1042-1051. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.011
OIS Amsterdam. Amsterdam in cijfers, Jaarboek 2015 (p. 23, Rep.). (2015). Amsterdam: Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek.
Otten, M., Mann, L., Berkum, J. J., & Jonas, K. J. (2016). No laughing matter: How the presence of laughing witnesses changes the perception of insults. Social Neuroscience, 12(2), 182-193. doi:10.1080/17470919.2016.1162194
Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & Berkum, J. J. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8(1), 89. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-8-89
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition?
International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405-428. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.743665
Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isnt It Ironic? An Electrophysiological
Exploration of Figurative Language Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277-293. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21411
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. (2002). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition & Emotion, 16(1), 143-163.
doi:10.1080/02699930143000167
Schacht, A., & Sommer, W. (2009). Emotions in word and face processing: Early and late cortical responses. Brain and Cognition, 69(3), 538-550. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.11.005
Schupp, H. T., Flaisch, T., Stockburger, J., & Junghöfer, M. (2006). Emotion and attention: event-related brain potential studies. Understanding Emotions Progress in Brain Research, 31-51. doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(06)56002-9
Shafa, S., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Beersma, B. (2014). Who Are You Calling Rude? Honor-Related Differences in Morality and Competence Evaluations After an Insult. Negotiation
and Conflict Management Research, 7(1), 38-56. doi:10.1111/ncmr.12024
Skiba, R. J., Eckes, S. E., & Brown, K. (2010). African American Disproportionality in School
Discipline: The Divide Between Best Evidence and Legal Remedy (Vol. 54, p. 1089, Rep.).
New York: New York Law School Review.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. The Urban
Review, 34(4), 317-342. doi:10.1023/a:1021320817372
Sur, S., & Sinha, V. (2009). Event-related potential: An overview. Industrial Psychiatry
Journal, 18(1), 70. doi:10.4103/0972-6748.57865
Sylvana: aapje-uitspraak van Derksen was racistisch en seksistisch. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ad.nl/nieuws/sylvana-aapje-uitspraak-van-derksen-was-racistisch-en-seksistisch~acd929d7/
Taylor, M., & Baldeweg, T. (2002). Application of EEG, ERP and intracranial recordings to the investigation of cognitive functions in children. Developmental Science, 5(3), 318-334. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00372
Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. (1973). When women are more deserving than men: Equity, attribution and perceived sex difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 360–367. Vrooman, J. C., Gijsberts, M. I., & Boelhouwer, J. (2014). Verschil in Nederland: Sociaal en
Supplementary Materials
List of stimuli:
The critical words are written in bold.
Insults:
Ik heb nog nooit zo een timide persoon ontmoet als jij. Jij komt echt als een verschrikkelijk hulpeloos persoon over. Jij bent een ontzettende sukkel zeg.
Je bent een schande voor de mensheid.
Ik vind jou eigenlijk te vervelend om mee om te gaan. Jij hebt nog nooit moed getoond tijdens een conflict. Zoals jij met dingen omgaat is echt triest en dom.
Als je verdwaald bent, ben je te laf om de weg te vragen. Jij bent opvallend laf, en dat weet iedereen.
Je bent een eikel zoals er maar weinig rondlopen. Jouw leven is nu al een mislukte onderneming. Wanneer je iets zegt zou niemand naar je luisteren. Met jou praten is een slaapverwekkende ervaring.
Jij staat regelmatig voor paal in je interacties met anderen. Ik vind jou heel verwend overkomen.
Ik heb nog nooit iemand gezien met zo weinig moed als jij. Jouw leven is waardeloos en inhoudsloos.
Iedereen vindt je een mietje en dat ben ik met ze eens. Jij bent een perfect voorbeeld van een asociaal persoon. Jij bent het sukkeltje van de vriendengroep.
Je bent een nietsnut en je hebt weinig bereikt in je leven.
Er zijn geen grenzen aan jouw domheid op intellectueel en sociaal vlak. Als het lastig wordt zal jij altijd wegrennen want je bent echt lafhartig. In een discussie laat jij je altijd overrompelen, zelfs door kinderen. Jij bent echt zo lui en nutteloos.
Jij bent de zwakste persoon die ik ken.
Als ik aan jou denk voel ik haat en diepe afkeer.
Jij durft nooit op een date te gaan omdat je daar veel te zwak voor bent. Bij een ruzie tussen je vrienden heb jij nooit gezag om te helpen. Omgaan met jou is een kwelling voor mij.
Jij hebt wel iets weg van een rat zoals jij met mensen omgaat. Een lafbek als jij verdient geen respect.
Jij hebt nog nooit moed getoond tijdens een conflict.
Jij bent werkelijk de meest achterlijke persoon die ik ooit heb ontmoet. In sociale situaties heb jij geen overwicht waardoor niemand je serieus neemt. Voor iemand opkomen zal door jouw onzekerheid nooit kunnen.
Je bent het afgrijselijkste dat me ooit is overkomen.
Jij bent de meest onsympathieke persoon die ik heb ontmoet.
Ik zou jou beschrijven als machteloos, je krijgt nooit iets voor elkaar. Je stelt je altijd onderdanig op.
Als ik jou hoor, voel ik jouw onzekerheid en lafheid. Jij roept bij mij eigenlijk vooral minachting op.
Zodra jij je mond open doet komen er alleen maar oninteressante dingen uit. Jij bent te schijterig om een uitdaging aan te gaan.
Ik zou willen dat je verdwijnt uit mijn leven. Jij straalt kwetsbaarheid uit.
Iedereen kan zien wat voor een zwakkeling je bent.
Jij bent je leven aan het verprutsen met je stompzinnige bezigheden.
Ik begrijp goed dat mensen jou willen ontwijken door jouw stomme persoonlijkheid. Uit jouw vriendengroep ben jij degene met het minste zeggenschap van hun allemaal. Jij durft nooit verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en dat maakt je een zwakkeling. Wat ben jij een ontzettend triest mens.
Iedereen ziet wat voor een slappeling je bent.
Jouw gezicht is ronduit vervelend om naar te kijken. In een groep ziet niemand jou staan omdat je zo slap bent. Jouw uitstraling is onprettig en zelfs een beetje afstotend.
Compliments:
Als ik aan jou denk voel ik liefde en warmte.
Jij kan iedereen in bedwang houden omdat je zoveel gezag hebt. Jouw uitstraling vrolijkt iedereen op.
Het is ontzettend dapper hoeveel risico je durft te nemen.
In een discussie toon jij altijd overwicht, waardoor iedereen jou gelooft. Als jij de kamer binnenloopt, ziet iedereen hoe machtig je bent.
Je vrienden weten dat jij altijd voor ze opkomt in vervelende situaties. Jouw inbreng in de discussie is altijd intelligent en opbouwend. Jij bent de moedigste persoon die ik ooit heb ontmoet.
Jij hebt altijd zulke goede ideeen over alles. Sociale interacties gaan je altijd met gemak af.
Voor alle dingen die je durft, heb ik bewondering voor jou. Samen met jou maak ik de leukste dingen mee.
Jij bent een hartelijk persoon.
In een moeilijke situatie zal je nooit de controle verliezen.
In een grote groep houd jij de controle waardoor iedereen naar je luistert. Op mij kom jij over als een slim persoon.
Wat ben jij een ontzettend begaafd persoon.
Jouw gevoel voor humor is een waardevolle eigenschap. Ik heb echt bewondering voor jouw sociale vaardigheden.
Als ik met jou over straat loop voel ik me altijd veilig, en dat heb ik niet snel. Het is plezierig om naar jou te luisteren.
Je bent de meest geweldige persoon die ik ken. Je hebt altijd zulke goede ideeen over alles.
Jouw overtuigingskracht vind ik bewonderenswaardig. Jij bent heel erg attent als het gaat om je vrienden.
Jouw smaak is opvallend goed in vergelijking met andere mensen. Jouw zeggenschap is een voorbeeld voor velen.
Iedereen luistert naar jou door jouw sterke uitstraling. Jij staat krachtig in je schoenen.
Je bent heel oprecht en dat waardeer ik echt.
Altijd als jij iets zegt realiseer ik me hoe intelligent je bent.
Op mensen zoals jij zit de wereld echt te wachten, dat weet ik zeker. Jouw persoonlijkheid straalt autoriteit uit.
Jouw karakter valt bij iedereen in de smaak, zo een leuk persoon ben jij. Jij verdient alleen maar lof en complimenten.
Jij hebt altijd grip op je vrienden.
Ik heb respect voor jouw sterke persoonlijkheid.
Niemand durft met jou te dollen, zo onverschrokken ben jij.
Iedereen doet wat je zegt omdat je zo een grote invloed hebt op mensen. Je bent een natuurlijke leider in groepen.
Jij bent onafhankelijk en sterk.
Als jij ergens binnenkomt ben je prominent aanwezig.
Ik begrijp heel goed dat mensen jou graag spreken want je bent fantastisch. Jij bent de dapperste persoon die ik ken.
Je bent zo creatief met al je originele ideeen.
Wat mij aan jou opvalt is dat je altijd zo grappig en vrolijk bent. Als jij er bent kan ik erop rekenen dat het altijd gezellig wordt. Het valt me op dat je zo een stralend persoon bent.
Jouw aanwezigheid maakt een dag gewoonweg beter en leuker. Je capaciteiten zijn oneindig, dat weet ik zeker.
Jouw dapperheid is uniek.
Dingen die je doet zijn vaak succesvol, en dat heb je aan jezelf te danken. Met jou naast me ben ik nergens meer bang voor.
We kunnen door jouw natuurlijke gezag alles bereiken wat we willen.
List of names:
Moroccan:
• Karim Elhamdaou • Morad Hassan Mohamed • Rachid Ahidar
Dutch:
• Bas Bruins • Cedric Mulder • Daan de Vries
