Jay Van Bavel
I am interested in how values, identities and motivations organize social perception and evaluation, and the underlying neural mechanisms that mediate these processes. This work builds on some basic assumptions about the dynamic nature of human perception and evaluation that are different from the dual process models that permeate psychology. My primary line of research takes a multi-level approach to self-categorization and social identity, blending theory and methods from social psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Other lines of research explore the flexibility of moral judgment and the effects of social context and individual differences on social perception and evaluation.
Address: Jay Van Bavel
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
New York University
6 Washington Place, room 752
New York, NY 10003
@vanbavellab
Address: Jay Van Bavel
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
New York University
6 Washington Place, room 752
New York, NY 10003
@vanbavellab
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (13)
Uploads
Papers by Jay Van Bavel
toward out-group relative to in-groupmembers, but also by increased counter-empathic responses: Schadenfreude and Gluckschmerz (Experiment 1). Comparing responses to in-group and out-group targets against responses to unaffiliated targets in this competitive context suggests that intergroup empathy bias may be better characterized by out-group antipathy rather than extraordinary in-group empathy (Experiment 2). We also find that intergroup empathy bias is robust to changes in relative group standing—feedback indicating that the out-group has fallen behind (Experiment 3a) or is no longer a competitive threat (Experiment 3b) does not reduce the bias. However, reducing perceived in-group and out-group entitativity can significantly attenuate intergroup empathy bias (Experiment 4). This research establishes the boundary conditions of intergroup empathy bias and provides initial support for a more integrative framework of group-based empathy.
Recent research suggests that the amygdala may play an important role in both of these
goals. Although the amygdala plays a role in processing motivationally relevant stimuli
that are positive or negative, negative information often appears to carry greater weight.
From a functional perspective, this may reflect the fact that threatening stimuli generally
require action, whereas appetitive stimuli can often be safely ignored. In the present
study, we examine whether amygdala activation to positive stimuli may be more sensitive
to task goals than negative stimuli—which are often related to self-preservation concerns.
During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants were presented with two
images that varied on valence and extremity and were instructed to focus on one of the
images. Results indicated that negative stimuli elicited greater amygdala activity
regardless of task-relevance. In contrast, positive stimuli only led to a relative increase in
amygdala activity when they were task-relevant. This suggests that the amygdala may be
more responsive to negative stimuli regardless of their relevance to immediate goals,
whereas positive stimuli may only elicit amygdala when they are relevant to the
perceivers’ goals. This pattern of valence asymmetry in the human amygdala may help
balance approach-related goal pursuit with chronic self-preservation goals
violations of fairness norms. Typically, individuals are presented with the option to punish
the transgressor or not. However, such a narrow choice set may fail to capture stronger
alternative preferences for restoring justice. Here we show, in contrast to the majority
of findings on social punishment, that other forms of justice restoration (for example,
compensation to the victim) are strongly preferred to punitive measures. Furthermore, these
alternative preferences for restoring justice depend on the perspective of the deciding agent.
When people are the recipient of an unfair offer, they prefer to compensate themselves
without seeking retribution, even when punishment is free. Yet when people observe a
fairness violation targeted at another, they change their decision to the most punitive option.
Together these findings indicate that humans prefer alternative forms of justice restoration to
punishment alone.
direct competition, affective responses to competition-irrelevant events are characterized not only by less empathy toward out-group relative to in-group members, but also by increased counter-empathic responses: Schadenfreude and Glückschmerz (Experiment 1). Comparing responses to in-group and out-group targets against responses to unaffiliated targets in this competitive context suggests that intergroup empathy bias may be better characterized by out-group antipathy rather than extraordinary in-group empathy (Experiment 2). We also find that intergroup
empathy bias is robust to changes in relative group standing—feedback indicating that the out-group has fallen behind (Experiment 3a) or is no longer a competitive threat (Experiment 3b) does not reduce the bias. However, reducing perceived in-group and out-group entitativity can significantly attenuate intergroup empathy bias (Experiment 4). This research establishes the boundary conditions of intergroup empathy bias and provides initial support for a more integrative framework of group-based empathy.
"
terms of racial ambiguity. In each study, self-reported conservatism (vs. liberalism) was associated with the tendency to categorize ambiguous faces as Black. Consistent with the notion that system justification motivation helps to explain ideological differences in racial categorization, the association between conservatism and hypodescent was mediated by individual differences in opposition to equality (Study 2) and was stronger when U.S. participants categorized American than Canadian faces (Study 3). We discuss ways in which the categorization of racially ambiguous individuals in terms of their most subordinate racial group may exacerbate inequality and vulnerability to discrimination.
toward out-group relative to in-groupmembers, but also by increased counter-empathic responses: Schadenfreude and Gluckschmerz (Experiment 1). Comparing responses to in-group and out-group targets against responses to unaffiliated targets in this competitive context suggests that intergroup empathy bias may be better characterized by out-group antipathy rather than extraordinary in-group empathy (Experiment 2). We also find that intergroup empathy bias is robust to changes in relative group standing—feedback indicating that the out-group has fallen behind (Experiment 3a) or is no longer a competitive threat (Experiment 3b) does not reduce the bias. However, reducing perceived in-group and out-group entitativity can significantly attenuate intergroup empathy bias (Experiment 4). This research establishes the boundary conditions of intergroup empathy bias and provides initial support for a more integrative framework of group-based empathy.
Recent research suggests that the amygdala may play an important role in both of these
goals. Although the amygdala plays a role in processing motivationally relevant stimuli
that are positive or negative, negative information often appears to carry greater weight.
From a functional perspective, this may reflect the fact that threatening stimuli generally
require action, whereas appetitive stimuli can often be safely ignored. In the present
study, we examine whether amygdala activation to positive stimuli may be more sensitive
to task goals than negative stimuli—which are often related to self-preservation concerns.
During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants were presented with two
images that varied on valence and extremity and were instructed to focus on one of the
images. Results indicated that negative stimuli elicited greater amygdala activity
regardless of task-relevance. In contrast, positive stimuli only led to a relative increase in
amygdala activity when they were task-relevant. This suggests that the amygdala may be
more responsive to negative stimuli regardless of their relevance to immediate goals,
whereas positive stimuli may only elicit amygdala when they are relevant to the
perceivers’ goals. This pattern of valence asymmetry in the human amygdala may help
balance approach-related goal pursuit with chronic self-preservation goals
violations of fairness norms. Typically, individuals are presented with the option to punish
the transgressor or not. However, such a narrow choice set may fail to capture stronger
alternative preferences for restoring justice. Here we show, in contrast to the majority
of findings on social punishment, that other forms of justice restoration (for example,
compensation to the victim) are strongly preferred to punitive measures. Furthermore, these
alternative preferences for restoring justice depend on the perspective of the deciding agent.
When people are the recipient of an unfair offer, they prefer to compensate themselves
without seeking retribution, even when punishment is free. Yet when people observe a
fairness violation targeted at another, they change their decision to the most punitive option.
Together these findings indicate that humans prefer alternative forms of justice restoration to
punishment alone.
direct competition, affective responses to competition-irrelevant events are characterized not only by less empathy toward out-group relative to in-group members, but also by increased counter-empathic responses: Schadenfreude and Glückschmerz (Experiment 1). Comparing responses to in-group and out-group targets against responses to unaffiliated targets in this competitive context suggests that intergroup empathy bias may be better characterized by out-group antipathy rather than extraordinary in-group empathy (Experiment 2). We also find that intergroup
empathy bias is robust to changes in relative group standing—feedback indicating that the out-group has fallen behind (Experiment 3a) or is no longer a competitive threat (Experiment 3b) does not reduce the bias. However, reducing perceived in-group and out-group entitativity can significantly attenuate intergroup empathy bias (Experiment 4). This research establishes the boundary conditions of intergroup empathy bias and provides initial support for a more integrative framework of group-based empathy.
"
terms of racial ambiguity. In each study, self-reported conservatism (vs. liberalism) was associated with the tendency to categorize ambiguous faces as Black. Consistent with the notion that system justification motivation helps to explain ideological differences in racial categorization, the association between conservatism and hypodescent was mediated by individual differences in opposition to equality (Study 2) and was stronger when U.S. participants categorized American than Canadian faces (Study 3). We discuss ways in which the categorization of racially ambiguous individuals in terms of their most subordinate racial group may exacerbate inequality and vulnerability to discrimination.