The social neuroscientific approach to intergroup relations provides a useful framework that allows social psychologists to understand the mechanisms underlying social behavior. The approach uses biological and social constructs to explain the occurrence of behavior within a social setting. However, some issues limit the usefulness of social neuroscience in the study of intergroup relations. Some of the strengths and limitations related to a neuroscientific approach to intergroup relations are discussed below.
Strengths of Social Neuroscientific Approach
Social neuroscience has significantly contributed to the theoretical enhancement of different social psychological concepts related to intergroup relations. In particular, social neuroscience has provided new theoretical views about the activation of implicit attitudes and intergroup biases (Dovidio et al., 2008). For instance, understanding the underlying neural structures is essential in explaining whether social behavior is linked to underlying cognitive processes. Studies have shown that activation of cognitive concepts such as prejudice and stereotypes influence an individual’s perception about an out-group ( Amodio, 2008). As such, social neuroscience allows researchers to determine how different cognitive structures influence the occurrence of implicit attitudes and intergroup bias in intergroup relations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Also, the approach allows researchers to use conscious cognitive control to reduce the activation of intergroup bias and negative implicit attitudes in intergroup relations. Research in cognitive neuroscience has revealed the possibility of using motivations and conscious processes to suppress activation of negative implicit attitudes and stereotypes (Dovidio et al., 2008). Therefore, social neuroscience has the potential to offer solutions to the issue of intergroup bias in a social setting.
Limitations of Social Neuroscientific Approach
The study of intergroup relations requires the recognition of situational, individual, intra-individual and structural process that influences intergroup behavior (Dovidio et al., 2008). The social neuroscience approach provides a robust framework to explain situational, individual and intra-individual processes relevant to intergroup behavior. However, the approach is limited in explaining the structural processes that influence intergroup behavior. For instance, studies reveal that inequality in most domains is perpetuated through institutionalized discrimination (Dovidio et al., 2008). The social neuroscience approach is limited in evaluating the influence of these system-level forces in modeling intergroup relations.
Secondly, the use of social neuroscience findings to explain intergroup relations has the limitation of over-interpreting the results. This can be caused by unfamiliarity with the methods used to evaluate the intergroup relations or the eagerness of the researchers to adopt scientific findings in their study (Dovidio et al., 2008). These results in oversimplified conclusions drawn from the findings, especially by individuals with limited knowledge in the technical and complex neuroscience filed.
Neuroscientific explanations may also erode a sense of personal responsibility and choice in intergroup relations. This is because individuals may end up explaining away their social behavior using scientific reasons and disregard the molar explanations for social behavior. As Harmon-Jones and Devine (2003) stated, not all social issues can be explained through social neuroscience. Some social practices, therefore, require a more moral approach to evaluate and analyze. Social neuroscience has the potential to facade more logical explanations of social behavior and allows individuals to avoid personal responsibility for their behaviors.
References
Amodio, D. M. (2008). The social neuroscience of intergroup relations. European review of social psychology , 19 (1), 1-54.
Dovidio, J. F., Pearson, A. R., & Orr, P. (2008). Social psychology and neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or a healthy marriage?. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 11 (2), 247-263.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Devine, P. G. (2003). Introduction to the special section on social neuroscience: promise and caveats. Journal of personality and social psychology , 85 (4), 589.
