A Biological Basis for Ethnocentrism

[sumskilz]

It seems the neurotransmitter oxytocin often referred to as the “love drug” associated with human bonding, orgasm, and maternal behaviors, also plays a role in ethnocentrism. Evidently there is a direct link between in-group trust and out-group distrust.

From a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year.

Abstract: Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members. In double-blind, placebo-controlled designs, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo and privately performed computer-guided tasks to gauge different manifestations of ethnocentric in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test to assess in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Experiment 3 used the infrahumanization task to assess the extent to which humans ascribe secondary, uniquely human emotions to their in-group and to an out-group. Experiments 4 and 5 confronted participants with the option to save the life of a larger collective by sacrificing one individual, nominated as in-group or as out-group. Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.

Anyone surprised there is a biological basis for intergroup prejudice? We’re often told that prejudice is cultural, but consistently rational or not, it makes sense to me that there would be an evolutionary advantage to erring on the side of distrust when dealing with “the other”.

Full text attached:

[Elfdude]

Kind of old news (like 10 years) but interesting none the less.

Oxytocin causes us to become familiar and comfortable with a person/object/group/etc. It's less like lustful love and more like you're apart of my team love. Thus it's natural that anything we're more familiar with will quickly become associated with more oxytocin and thus we're more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. Similarly by being familiar with them we recognize the differences of individuals which keep us from making sweeping judgements of those we like, however it's very easy for us to pick up on any detail of an outgroup that we're not familiar with and blame that for our biochemical affinities.

This was perhaps most convincingly demonstrated with children before they could talk. The question of whether we're naturally inclusive or exclusive produced some interesting experiments. One experiment was designed where an animal puppet was violent/mean/etc to another of the same species, the children naturally sided with the 'nice' puppet by preferring to be around it. This can go on pretty much indefinitely, if there's two individuals a child has never seen he/she will look at it rather unbiased and side with the 'moral' puppet. On the other hand if you take the same animal the child previously sided with and then have them do something mean to another animal (or the same previous animal) the children more often then not sided with the same puppet instead of the 'moral' but different one.

Essentially once the child knew of the puppet anything that was not the puppet was no longer in the group and when it came to a contest between the ingroup puppet and any outgroup puppet the ingroup puppet would nearly always win. This happens with children from day one. They begin by seeing family members usually of the same ethnicity as them. They typically live in communities with large proportions of similar ethnicities and they learn to spot the individual characteristics of those ethnicities they are familiar with. At the same time their brain ceases looking at outgroup individuals as thoroughly to save time and energy. The problem here is that we tend to create 'ruts' in our mind. Just because X child has been exposed to Y ethnicity his entire life he may naturally feel more safe and at home with Y ethnicitiy, and the most obvious reason for that is the ethnicity (of course the real reason is familiarity) of the individual and any perceived differences that person can use to justify their position. When X child is an adult they're unlikely to challenge these beliefs without someone from in their own group doing so which leads to all sorts of literal childishness as adults.

But in knowing this we can counter it. By deliberating exposing your child to a variety of cultures and ethnicities they'll properly include everyone as part of their group and thus worthy in the long term of being treated as a human.

[sumskilz]

Kind of old news (like 10 years) but interesting none the less.

I assume you mean that there is a biological basis. It's my understanding that this is the first evidence of the mechanism at the synaptic level.

Oxytocin causes us to become familiar and comfortable with a person/object/group/etc. It's less like lustful love and more like you're apart of my team love.

Yeah, dopamine plays a more central role in the lustful “love”. That orgasm plays a role in pair bonding makes sense though, especially for the woman since it’s indicative of investment on the man’s part.

I just find it ironic though that emotions that we typically conceive of as “good” are so connected to attitudes we think of as “bad”.

[Elfdude]

I assume you mean that there is a biological basis. It's my understanding that this is the first evidence of the mechanism at the synaptic level.

I wouldn't know if this is the first experimental evidence of it or not, or even what they mean by first evidence. But the mechanism has been proposed since LSD opened the world to understanding that biochemistry affects our behavior. The first documentary I saw on the experiments were in my AP psychology class in 2002 as part of a series on behavior chemicals and they assigned it to causing in group phenomena then too.

Yeah, dopamine plays a more central role in the lustful “love”. That orgasm plays a role in pair bonding makes sense though, especially for the woman since it’s indicative of investment on the man’s part.

Yep, dopamine is just one of many. An orgasm releases a biological cocktail from oxytocin to testosterone in both men and women and just about everything in between. But what's more key is to understand that these chemicals cause certain affinities in your unconscious brain. Your conscious brain is capable of distancing itself from their influence and on the occassions your subconscious makes a mistake and for example causes you to fear social interaction by consciously counter-manding it you can fundamentally alter your own brain chemistry. On the other hand when the brain mistakenly thinks something is good the opposite can be applied. Hence why cognitive or behavioral modification therapy works so well.

I just find it ironic though that emotions that we typically conceive of as “good” are so connected to attitudes we think of as “bad”.

Yup. For example oxytocin simplified is empathy. Testosterone is competition. How does one be competitive within a team? Well you need both oxytocin and testosterone clearly. Testosterone has had such a horrible reputation since it's association with the male. Nevermind that it is also the chemical that causes the gorgeous lines of beautiful women, whereas estrogen makes them overly curvy and unappealing.

[Phier]

Anyone surprised there is a biological basis for intergroup prejudice? We’re often told that prejudice is cultural, but consistently rational or not, it makes sense to me that there would be an evolutionary advantage to erring on the side of distrust when dealing with “the other”.

Full text attached:

I am constantly amazed at how amazing gods design of humanity is. He thought of everything!

But on a more serious note, its not surprising at all. Personal anecdote, I live in a VERY multicultural area and a couple of summers ago I was at an event and just felt very relaxed. It was then a realized that everyone in this large gathering of people was white, something that is very rare here. I found it interesting because I had the feeling before I was consciously aware of my surroundings. Now with n=1 it might have been simply coincidence, but I think I recognized the change in myself.

I haven't read the full paper yet, so if they covered this I'll comment later, but it would be very interesting to see what group people attach to in this. Would a mixed race child feel affinity to both groups or just one? Would an adopted child of another race feel more comfortable with their parents race or their own? Does this apply to how people dress or language?

My feeling is this is a type of imprinting.

[Ludicus]

It seems that oxytocin improves empathic accuracy/ social behavior /social cognitive abilities for less socially proficient individuals but has little effect on those who are more socially proficient.
Link

[Phier]

It seems that oxytocin improves empathic accuracy/ social behavior /social cognitive abilities for less socially proficient individuals but has little effect on those who are more socially proficient.
Link

and?

[Ludicus]

and?

Oxytocin helps to treat autistic-like social behaviour (racists are excluded, Phier )

I think that this just means some people are trying to justify being racist

It's obvious. Biological or essentialist racism denies to all human beings the possibility of sharing the same humanity (Taguieff,1997)

[Elfdude]

I haven't read the full paper yet, so if they covered this I'll comment later, but it would be very interesting to see what group people attach to in this. Would a mixed race child feel affinity to both groups or just one? Would an adopted child of another race feel more comfortable with their parents race or their own? Does this apply to how people dress or language?

Eh, it's hard to say yes with the way you've phrased it, perhaps we're looking at this slightly wrong. It's not about the race of the child, it's about the familiarity of the actors within the child's environment. If you give a child a stuffed bear they will become biased against stuffed rabbits. Similarly if you expose a child to both races they will feel an affinity to both races. It's unlikely that the parents alone have a significant impact on this as the individual traits of the parents aren't going to be very varied. The brain needs comparison points and if your dad is black and your mom is white odds are you're still going to feel an ingroup bias with whichever of the two races (not individuals!) you spend more time with. Often this is white as whites simply make up a greater proportion of the population leading to mixed raced children who have similar anti views of minorities.

Perhaps more worrisome is whether or not these biases are picked up by the outgroup and believed or used to identify themselves. For example the insistance on 'black-pride', 'mexican-pride' and whatever other hippy tolerance garbage actually leads to stronger schisms in society in which the cultures refuse to assimilate. Given enough time the cultures polarize and split from each other. More concerningly it's not uncommon to see the same sterotypes whites have of minorities within the minority groups themselves and just as believed although strangely not generating the negativity they do when perpetuated by outgroups.

Oxytocin is released in the process of social interaction and is not specific as to whether you're bonding with your own race, a cat, an imaginary friend or even an inanimate object. So it's a very safe bet to say that the ethnocentricism has less to do with the child's geno/phenotype and more to do with the people they're exposed to. It is very possible to expose a child to several different ethnicities however and have them thus include each of the familiar groups within their own ingroup. Unfortunately it's likely they'd still have a hierarchy of sorts based on which one is most familiar/most rewarding etc at least until they were old enough to question such illusions.

[Phier]

You know thinking of my subconscious racist moment reminded me of when I was dating a Mexican girl. She came from tough almost all Mexican neighborhood with gangs, drugs, etc. We were in my car and I was driving around my subburb which at the time was voted one of those "best cities to raise a family" in the US. Very safe, low crime etc. She was damn near terrified to be there. She was extremely uneasy and frigity in the car and admitted how uncomfortable she was to be there. Now this was a girl going to a good college, but being in a mostly white neighborhood just freaked her out.

It would be interesting of Oxytocin played a part in being uncomfortable to ones surroundings when they are not those you grew up in.

Oxytocin is released in the process of social interaction and is not specific as to whether you're bonding with your own race, a cat, an imaginary friend or even an inanimate object. So it's a very safe bet to say that the ethnocentricism has less to do with the child's geno/phenotype and more to do with the people they're exposed to. It is very possible to expose a child to several different ethnicities however and have them thus include each of the familiar groups within their own ingroup. Unfortunately it's likely they'd still have a hierarchy of sorts based on which one is most familiar/most rewarding etc at least until they were old enough to question such illusions.

Well thats why my hunch would be its an imprinting phenomena. I doubt its based on racial genetics, but a period where you learn who to trust based on familiarity.

[Sphere]

I am constantly amazed at how amazing gods design of humanity is. He thought of everything!

But on a more serious note, its not surprising at all. Personal anecdote, I live in a VERY multicultural area and a couple of summers ago I was at an event and just felt very relaxed. It was then a realized that everyone in this large gathering of people was white, something that is very rare here. I found it interesting because I had the feeling before I was consciously aware of my surroundings. Now with n=1 it might have been simply coincidence, but I think I recognized the change in myself.

I haven't read the full paper yet, so if they covered this I'll comment later, but it would be very interesting to see what group people attach to in this. Would a mixed race child feel affinity to both groups or just one? Would an adopted child of another race feel more comfortable with their parents race or their own? Does this apply to how people dress or language?

My feeling is this is a type of imprinting.

Being a whitey from some North side suburb isn't a very good anecdote. Black people from South-side Chicago will kill you, it is a demonstrable fact. It has nothing to do with genes.

That being said, I think Dawkins' selfish gene lays out a pretty good blueprint for why we might have a tendancy for ethnocentrism. All our modern social philosophy might be predicated on the idea of human equality, but the blue-eye gene has to be a bit of Nazi if it wants to survive. Our brain and our body are set up to keep our genes immortal, not us. It is why we think babies are so ing cute, and why we think black people are so ing scary.

[Phier]

Being a whitey from some North side suburb isn't a very good anecdote. Black people from South-side Chicago will kill you, it is a demonstrable fact. It has nothing to do with genes.

They haven't yet, cause I'm ice cold. And who you calling North side?

Now it's excusable and justified, nice. I don't think black people are ing crazy, although I used to before. A lot of people are subconsciously racist but you have to get over it. I don't believe oxytocin is responsible for racism, and I think that this just means some people are trying to justify being racist. The way you get over being subconsciously racist is accepting in your mind that everybody is different, instead of trying to convince to yourself that race doesn't matter and everyone is the same, a little more complicated than that but I've had plenty of people agree with me and we've had discussions about it in the university. We are different, I don't know to what lengths that goes, all I know is that some diseases hit certain ethnicities harder than others or are exclusively targeting certain groups of people. I don't care about anything else but the point is we are different, so what? Who gives a ? I really don't believe ethnocentrism is biological.

So you ignore data but go by what you talked about with people?

[Nutsack]

Now it's excusable and justified, nice. I don't think black people are ing crazy, although I used to before. A lot of people are subconsciously racist but you have to get over it. I don't believe oxytocin is responsible for racism, and I think that this just means some people are trying to justify being racist. The way you get over being subconsciously racist is accepting in your mind that everybody is different, instead of trying to convince to yourself that race doesn't matter and everyone is the same, a little more complicated than that but I've had plenty of people agree with me and we've had discussions about it in the university. We are different, I don't know to what lengths that goes, all I know is that some diseases hit certain ethnicities harder than others or are exclusively targeting certain groups of people. I don't care about anything else but the point is we are different, so what? Who gives a ? I really don't believe ethnocentrism is biological.

[Aanker]

Now it's excusable and justified, nice. I don't think black people are ing crazy, although I used to before. A lot of people are subconsciously racist but you have to get over it. I don't believe oxytocin is responsible for racism, and I think that this just means some people are trying to justify being racist. The way you get over being subconsciously racist is accepting in your mind that everybody is different, instead of trying to convince to yourself that race doesn't matter and everyone is the same, a little more complicated than that but I've had plenty of people agree with me and we've had discussions about it in the university. We are different, I don't know to what lengths that goes, all I know is that some diseases hit certain ethnicities harder than others or are exclusively targeting certain groups of people. I don't care about anything else but the point is we are different, so what? Who gives a ? I really don't believe ethnocentrism is biological.

It's a scientific report in what appears to be a well-established journal.

It is important to note though that just because something is natural (i.e. xenophobism), does not mean it is inherently good. Xenophobism has consistently produced "bad" results, such as violence, while tolerance has allowed great societies to emerge. Part of human history has been the conquering of natural barriers. Human natural barriers are included in that picture.

[Nutsack]

It's a scientific report in what appears to be a well-established journal.

It is important to note though that just because something is natural (i.e. xenophobism), does not mean it is inherently good. Xenophobism has consistently produced "bad" results, such as violence, while tolerance has allowed great societies to emerge. Part of human history has been the conquering of natural barriers. Human natural barriers are included in that picture.

Sure I believe that its true. I don't like it though because it's an excuse. Same thing I wrote earlier but you decided to quote me before I changed my mind about it in a second post?

Racism always seems very dependent on the gender. Why has no studies been made on this? I'm almost certain that males are a lot more often victims of racism than are women. If you are a black male where I live you will encounter racist behavior far more often than if you are a black woman.

[Aanker]

Sure I believe that its true. I don't like it though because it's an excuse. Same thing I wrote earlier but you decided to quote me before I changed my mind about it in a second post?

It's only an excuse if someone uses it as such, in which case the excuse is pretty poor because of the aforementioned argument that what is natural is not always good.

Racism always seems very dependent on the gender. Why has no studies been made on this? I'm almost certain that males are a lot more often victims of racism than are women. If you are a black male where I live you will encounter racist behavior far more often than if you are a black woman.

I'm sure there is a study somewhere that addresses this. It is not unthinkable that racism is expressed in different ways towards the genders. However personal observation is tricky here because you may have a bias as to what racism is, and how it is expressed (i.e. not noticing nonverbal ways of harassment - this is just an example).

[Elfdude]

I missed your post nut.

Racism always seems very dependent on the gender. Why has no studies been made on this?

There has been. Unfortunately trying to find them is a chore as they topic is innudated with endless reports of how racist XYZ area or practice or whatever is. Finding gender difference studies is hard enough as it is, finding racism differences between genders is even more rare.

I'm almost certain that males are a lot more often victims of racism than are women. If you are a black male where I live you will encounter racist behavior far more often than if you are a black woman.

This isn't necessarily true. You may be correct that as far as the squeaky wheel goes male to male racism is much more likely to be outright and obvious but women are far more victimized by their race than men are. This is likely because they're suffering a combination of racist and sexist beliefs which are holding them back. Thus where black-men are significantly affected by racism, black-women are more so affected.

Ipso-facto women are far more racist and homophobic than men are and this is due to oxytocin. During ovulation a massive amount of oxytocin causes a woman to seek out familiar potential mates. They grow extremely horny as testosterone demands their instincts are fulfilled. Many women in fact produce indistinguishable responses to both their husbands and their husband's best friend during this time. A major reason for infidelity amongst women. For some reason when men are horny their responses are the most strong with the woman they're most familiar with almost night and day. Though men can still easily perform in both situations, a man seems to have natural paranoia of rejection which acts as an inhibitor to infidelity. This is why most men who cheat are already in a relationship where they feel rejected by their partner.

This makes sense though because a women is hard-coded genetically to resist the attempts of men to convince them to have sex and potentially have a mate that will not stick around to help. I.E. as far as genetics/biochemistry are concerned previous familiarity is a much better representation of being able to trust someone long-term. Unfortunately genetics aren't able to hard-code the process of evaluating someone and thus it's important to realize that while this mechanism exists and does push us a certain direction we have the ability to consciously evaluate and deny the validity of this feeling. So while we're not smart enough to evaluate people (some never get smart enough) our trust of the familiar more often then not saves us. This unfortunately is part of why the suspicious 'uncle' who's always around can so easily gain the trust of children and we know where it goes from there.

[Ludicus]

Oxytocin is released in the process of social interaction and is not specific as to whether you're bonding with your own race, a cat, an imaginary friend or even an inanimate object.

Exactly. For example,changes in Oxytocin Levels in Men and Women Before and After Interaction with a Bonded Dog,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An Examination of Changes in Oxytocin Levels in Men and Women Before and After Interaction with a Bonded Dog

Miller, Suzanne C.; Kennedy, Cathy; DeVoe, Dale; Hickey, Matthew; Nelson, Tracy; Kogan, Lori

Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, Volume 22, Number 1, Spring 2009 , pp. 31-42(12)

Oxytocin (OT) is a neuropeptide increasingly recognized for its role in bonding, socialization, and stress relief. Previous research has demonstrated participants' OT levels increased after interacting with or petting a dog, suggesting OT is at least partially responsible for the calm, relaxing feeling that participants experienced during this intervention. The purpose of our study was to more closely examine changes in oxytocin levels in men and women in response to interaction with their own dog after being separated from the dog while at work all day. This condition was compared with a reading control condition, without the presence of the dog. Because the workplace is a common stressor, participants were examined after work to evaluate how interacting with a pet may help decrease stress, as evidenced by increases in serum oxytocin levels. Ten men and ten women participated in the study. Serum oxytocin levels were obtained before the participants had contact with their dogs and then again after 25 minutes of interaction with their dog. The same protocol was followed for the reading condition except that instead of interacting with their dog, participants read nonfiction materials selected by the researchers. Serum oxytocin levels increased statistically more for women who interacted with their dog when compared with women in the reading condition (p = 0.003). There was no significant increase in oxytocin level in men after interaction with the bonded dog compared with the reading condition; in fact, male oxytocin levels decreased after both the dog and reading conditions. These results suggest that men and women may have different hormonal responses to interaction with their dogs. It is unclear to what degree OT reactivity was affected by hormones, personality traits, or interpersonal relationships; factors which warrant further research.

women are far more racist ... than men

Or not,
Gender Differences in Whites' Racial Attitudes

"In short, our study shows that with controls for demographic, political ideology, and religiosity variables, white men's and white women's racial attitudes do not differ appreciably on most indicators. Where differences exist, women are more likely than men to be favorable, but these differences are not large... We find that gender differences in racial attitudes are small, inconsistent, and limited mostly to attitudes on racial policy"

[Nutsack]

Sure I believe that its true. I don't like it though because it's an excuse.

[sumskilz]

I haven't read the full paper yet, so if they covered this I'll comment later, but it would be very interesting to see what group people attach to in this. Would a mixed race child feel affinity to both groups or just one? Would an adopted child of another race feel more comfortable with their parents race or their own? Does this apply to how people dress or language?

From the study, it’s hard to tell for certain on any of these except the last, which appears to be a definite yes for language. The Dutch test subjects had a bias against both Germans and Arabs that increased with intranasal administration of oxytocin.

My feeling is this is a type of imprinting.

Yeah, I think so. There have also been studies that support the idea that people have a greater ability to remember and distinguish between faces which are more similar to those they were exposed to in early childhood. Funny enough considering the typical joke in the US, but not surprising, is that test subjects in China have more trouble distinguishing between Caucasian faces than East Asian faces.