New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Racism Not Hardwired, Scientists Say

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In recent years a number of studies have reached the same thorny conclusion about human cognition: when encountering a person for the first time, our brains automatically make note of the individual's race. But new research indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Findings reported today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicate that even brief exposure to an alternative social world can markedly diminish the extent to which people categorize others by race. The results suggest that racism may be an erasable by-product of cognitive adaptations that evolved to detect coalitions and alliances.

Importantly, the same studies that seemed to suggest that humans have hardwired racist tendencies also indicated that people view each other in terms of sex and age. Yet whereas natural selection could conceivably favor automatic categorization according to those two factors, exactly how our ancestors might have benefited from encoding race is difficult to imagine. "Ancestral hunter gatherers traveled primarily by foot and, consequently, residential moves of greater than 40 miles would have been rare," note study authors Robert Kurzban, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Encounters with members of different races were thus uncommon.

But the ability to assess alliances¿which the brain might in some cases link to appearances¿would have served early humans well, the researchers propose. To test that hypothesis, they showed test subjects members of two racially integrated rival basketball teams having an argument and subsequently asked a series of tricky questions about who said what. An analysis of the errors the study participants made showed that rather than mixing up members of the same race¿as would be expected if they were categorizing by race¿the subjects mixed up members of the same team.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"Our subjects had experienced a lifetime in which ethnicity (including race) was an ecologically valid predictor of people's social alliances and coalitional affiliations. Yet less than [four minutes] of exposure to an alternative social world in which race was irrelevant to the prevailing system of alliances caused a dramatic decrease in the extent to which they categorized others by race," the authors write. "If the same processes govern categorization outside the laboratory," they conclude, "then the prospects for reducing or even eliminating the widespread tendency to categorize persons by race may be very good indeed."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe