↓ Skip to main content

A review of neuroimaging studies of race-related prejudice: does amygdala response reflect threat?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review of neuroimaging studies of race-related prejudice: does amygdala response reflect threat?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam M. Chekroud, Jim A. C. Everett, Holly Bridge, Miles Hewstone

Abstract

Prejudice is an enduring and pervasive aspect of human cognition. An emergent trend in modern psychology has focused on understanding how cognition is linked to neural function, leading researchers to investigate the neural correlates of prejudice. Research in this area using racial group memberships has quickly highlighted the amygdala as a neural structure of importance. In this article, we offer a critical review of social neuroscientific studies of the amygdala in race-related prejudice. Rather than the dominant interpretation that amygdala activity reflects a racial or outgroup bias per se, we argue that the observed pattern of sensitivity in this literature is best considered in terms of potential threat. More specifically, we argue that negative culturally-learned associations between black males and potential threat better explain the observed pattern of amygdala activity. Finally, we consider future directions for the field and offer specific experiments and predictions to directly address unanswered questions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 200 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 18%
Student > Bachelor 35 17%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Master 24 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 41 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 88 42%
Neuroscience 24 11%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 51 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#575,471
of 25,468,789 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#255
of 7,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,105
of 238,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#11
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.