Group Processes & Intergroup Relations current issue

Dehumanization: Humanity and its Denial

Castano, E., Kofta, M. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:39:53 PDT

In this paper, which is the introduction to the special issue ‘Dehumanization: Humanity and its Denial,’ we present a brief overview of social psychological research on the concept of dehumanization and infrahumanization. Focusing on the findings and theorizing of the special issue articles we discuss the relation between these two concepts, their determinants and consequences, particularly in the context of intergroup relations, but also with regard to the distal motives that may prompt individuals to equate humanity to the groups to which they belong.

Priming Effects of Violence on Infrahumanization

Delgado, N., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Vaes, J., Leyens, J.-P., Betancor, V. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:40:34 PDT

Two experiments examine whether exposure to generic violence can display infrahumanization towards out-groups. In Study 1, participants had to solve a lexical decision task after viewing animal or human violent scenes. In Study 2, participants were exposed to either human violent or human suffering pictures before doing a lexical decision task. In both studies, the infrahumanization bias appeared after viewing the human violent pictures but not in the other experimental conditions. These two experiments support the idea of contextual dependency of infrahumanization, and suggest that violence can prime an infrahuman perception of the out-group. Theoretical implications for infrahumanization and potential underlying mechanisms are discussed.

What do I Care? Perceived Ingroup Responsibility and Dehumanization as Predictors of Empathy Felt for the Victim Group

Cehajic, S., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:40:58 PDT

This research examined the effects of reminders of ingroup responsibility for past wrongdoings on perception of ingroup responsibility and victim dehumanization as predictors of empathy. Two experiments set in different intergroup contexts found that reminders of ingroup responsibility generated empathy through perception of ingroup responsibility and deflected empathy through subtle victim dehumanization. In Experiment 1, set in the context of indigenous—non-indigenous relations in Chile (N = 124), it was found that reminders of ingroup (vs. individual) responsibility generated empathy by increasing a perception of ingroup responsibility and deflected it through decreased attribution of secondary emotions to the victim group. Experiment 2 replicated the effects in a different context, the recent 1992—1995 war in Bosnia (N = 158). Reminders of ingroup responsibility (vs. no reminders) generated empathy by increasing a perception of ingroup responsibility and deflected it through decreased attribution of secondary emotions to the victim group. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Superordinate Categorization as a Moderator of Mutual Infrahumanization

Gaunt, R. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:04 PDT

This research applies the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) to explore the moderating role of superordinate categorization in infrahumanization. Two studies were conducted within the context of an inter-racial intergroup conflict. As hypothesized, perceived outgroup identification with the superordinate category (Study 1) or identification with the superordinate category (Study 2) was related to a weaker tendency to infrahumanize the outgroup by attributing it a lesser degree of secondary emotions. In addition, weak ingroup identification eliminated infrahumanization in Study 2. The implications of these findings for infrahumanization research are discussed.

Understanding the Relationship between Attribute-Based and Metaphor-Based Dehumanization

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Kashima, Y. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:09 PDT

Previous research has adopted two distinct approaches to the study of dehumanization. One has focused on the denial of human attributes to groups (attribute-based dehumanization) and the other on the likening of group members to nonhumans (metaphor-based dehumanization). The relationship between these two approaches has yet to be examined. The current studies seek to clarify this relationship by integrating the two approaches. Using Haslam and colleagues’ (Haslam, 2006; Haslam, Loughnan, Kashima & Bain, 2008) model of dehumanization, we examined whether attribute-based dehumanization leads to metaphor-based dehumanization, and vice versa. In Study 1 participants read about a novel group that was described either as lacking one type of humanness or as being like a nonhuman. In Study 2 a concrete learning task taught participants that a novel group lacked a specific type of humanness. In both studies, participants explicitly learned to dehumanize the group and inferred the corresponding type of attribute- or metaphor-based perception (e.g. perceived a group as animal-like after learning that it lacked uniquely human attributes, and vice versa). Implicitly, however, participants were able to directly learn but not robustly infer the corresponding type of dehumanization. We suggest that the relationship between the two types of dehumanization can be understood using cognitive models of metaphor-making.

Of Mice and Men, and Objectified Women: A Terror Management Account of Infrahumanization

Goldenberg, J., Heflick, N., Vaes, J., Motyl, M., Greenberg, J. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:10 PDT

This article offers terror management theory (TMT) as a conceptual lens through which the process of infrahumanization can be viewed. TMT suggests that people are threatened by the awareness of their mortal, animal nature, and that by emphasizing their symbolic, cultural—and hence, uniquely human—existence, they can help quell this threat. The article reviews empirical evidence demonstrating that reminders of mortality increase efforts to see the self and in-groups as more uniquely human. In addition, it is posited that, as an ironic consequence of defensive efforts to rid the self and certain others of any connection to animal nature, people are sometimes stripped of their human nature. The study presents evidence that the objectification, and self-objectification, of women can be viewed from this perspective and concludes that both emphasizing people’s uniquely human qualities and viewing them as objectified symbols can be understood as serving a terror management function.

Categorization of Ambiguous Human/Ape Faces: Protection of Ingroup but Not Outgroup Humanity

Capozza, D., Boccato, G., Andrighetto, L., Falvo, R. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:11 PDT

In two studies, we tested the hypothesis that categorization of ambiguous human/ape faces depends on group membership: people are inclined to protect ingroup humanity, but not that of the outgroup. We used as stimuli: human, ape, ambiguous human/ape faces. Ambiguous human/ape faces were generated using a computerized morphing procedure. Participants categorized stimuli as human or ape. Two conditions were introduced: in the ingroup condition, participants were informed that human exemplars were ingroup members, in the outgroup condition that they were outgroup members. We expected participants, in an effort to protect ingroup humanity, to categorize ambiguous stimuli as ape more often in the ingroup than outgroup condition. Predictions were confirmed. Results are discussed in the context of infrahumanization theory.

Attributing Human Uniqueness and Human Nature to Cultural Groups: Distinct Forms of Subtle Dehumanization

Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., Haslam, N. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:11 PDT

Research on subtle dehumanization has focused on the attribution of human uniqueness to groups (infrahumanization), but has not examined another sense of humanness, human nature. Additionally, research has not extended far beyond Western cultures to examine the universality of these forms of dehumanization. Hence, the attribution of both forms of humanness was examined in three cross-cultural studies. Anglo-Australian and ethnic Chinese attributed values and traits (Study 1, N = 200) and emotions (Study 2, N = 151) to Australian and Chinese groups, and rated these characteristics on human uniqueness and human nature. Both studies found evidence of complementary attributions of humanness for Australians, who denied Chinese human nature but attributed them with greater human uniqueness. Chinese denied Australians human uniqueness, but their attributions of human nature varied for traits, values, and emotions. Study 3 (N = 54) demonstrated similar forms of dehumanization using an implicit method. These results and their implications for dehumanization and prejudice suggest the need to broaden investigation and theory to encompass both forms of humanness, and examine the attribution of both lesser and greater humanness to outgroups.

Retrospective and Prospective Thoughts About Infrahumanization

Leyens, J.-P. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:12 PDT

The birth of infrahumanization is linked to essentialism. Ingroups were said to be the only ones with a full human essence. It was meant that ingroups were paragons of humanity. Almost like the Holy Spirit, essence has different definitions and can only be approached indirectly. The present paper insists on the fundamental (essential) differences between groups. It is proposed that if differences change, the groups (their essences) are seen as transformed. The second part of the paper looks for what makes differences crucial or essential. Variables are examined or proposed in terms of sufficiency and necessity. ‘Which outgroups are infrahumanized’ will remain an unsolved problem until sufficient and necessary conditions are discovered.

Acknowledgement of Reviewers

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:41:12 PDT