Attributing and denying humanness to others

We review a programme of research on the attribution of humanness to people, and the ways in which lesser humanness is attributed to some compared to others. We first present evidence that humanness has two distinct senses, one representing properties that are unique to our species, and the other—human nature—those properties that are essential or fundamental to the human category. An integrative model of dehumanisation is then laid out, in which distinct forms of dehumanisation correspond to the denial of the two senses of humanness, and the likening of people to particular kinds of nonhuman entities (animals and machines). Studies demonstrating that human nature attributes are ascribed more to the self than to others are reviewed, along with evidence of the phenomenon's cognitive and motivational basis. Research also indicates that both kinds of humanness are commonly denied to social groups, both explicitly and implicitly, and that they may cast a new light on the study of stereotype content. Our approach to the study of dehumanisation complements the tradition of research on infrahumanisation, and indicates new directions for exploring the importance of humanness as a dimension of social perception.     

Pairing People with Products: Anthropomorphizing the Object,Dehumanizing the Person

We present the first empirical integration of anthropomorphism and dehumanization, two intrinsically linked processes representing the extent to which the concept of humanness is activated for a given target. Across several experiments, we demonstrate that pairing a person and object in an ad, while focusing respondent attention on the object, leads to its being anthropomorphized and evaluated better compared to presenting it alone. However, compared to presenting a person alone, the same pairing leads to inferior evaluations of the person through a process of dehumanization. We rule out two alternative explanations for these effects, namely the transfer of an object's qualities to the person and consumption associations, and conduct a post‐test that provides additional support for our proposed activation/inhibition of humanness account. Finally, we inspect several moderators, finding that anthropomorphism only occurs with moderately and highly functional objects and dehumanization occurs irrespective of the person's gender or fame. By incorporating the literature on dehumanization, we propose new research questions to motivate future inquiry.     

Abusive leadership versus objectifying job features: Factors that influence organizational dehumanization and workers’ self-objectification

Recent research has revealed that work often can undermine people's humanness by promoting a view of them as mere objects. In particular, the workers’ meta-perceptions of being treated as company resources (i.e., organizational dehumanization) and their self-perceptions of being instrument-like (i.e., self-objectification) could be triggered by several factors. Previous research has identified that abusive supervisors and engaging in objectifying (repetitive, fragmented and other oriented) tasks are two of the main key factors that affect worker's dehumanization. The present project aims to disentangle the extent both factors (perceptions of abusive leadership and performing objectifying tasks) contribute to created perceptions of organizational dehumanization and self-objectification among workers that, ultimately, affects workers job satisfaction. In Study 1 (N = 208 workers), we measured the extent perceived abusive supervisors and objectifying job features predicted organizational dehumanization, self-objectification, and job satisfaction. The results indicate that abusive supervisors predicted perceptions of organizational dehumanization and workers self-objectification in a higher extent than objectifying job features, while workers job satisfaction was predicted in a higher extent by objectifying job features. In Study 2 (N = 141), we experimentally manipulated the abusive (versus nonabusive) supervisors and the objectifying (versus nonobjectifying) tasks in a laboratory setting. Results also indicated that the abusive supervisor exerts a greater influence than performing objectifying tasks on organizational dehumanization, self-objectification, and job satisfaction. The detrimental effect of an abusive supervisor in comparison with other working conditions on workers’ humanness is discussed, and practical implications are highlighted.     

Denying humanness to others: a newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior

Past research has provided abundant evidence that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior. So far, these effects have been explained mainly as the result of priming existing knowledge structures. The research reported here examined the role of denying humanness to other people in accounting for the effect that playing a violent video game has on aggressive behavior. In two experiments, we found that playing violent video games increased dehumanization, which in turn evoked aggressive behavior. Thus, it appears that video-game-induced aggressive behavior is triggered when victimizers perceive the victim to be less human.     

How do different humanness measures relate? Confronting the attribution of secondary emotions,human uniqueness,and human nature traits

The present research examines the relationship between the infrahumanization approach and the two-dimensional model of humanness: an issue that has received very little empirical attention. In Study 1, we created three unknown groups (Humanized, Animalized, and Mechanized) granting/denying them Human Nature (HN) and Human Uniqueness (HU) traits. The attribution of primary/secondary emotions was measured. As expected, participants attributed more secondary emotions to the humanized compared to dehumanized groups. Importantly, both animalized and mechanized groups were attributed similar amounts of secondary emotions. In Study 2, the groups were described in terms of their capacity to express secondary emotions. We measured the attribution of HN/HU traits. Results showed that the infrahumanized group was denied both HU/HN traits. The results highlight the importance of considering the common aspects of both approaches in understanding processes of dehumanization.     

Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism

Humans have a fundamental need to form and maintain relationships. Social exclusion frustrates this need and has devastating psychological effects. The current research examines the relationship between social exclusion and the experience of dehumanization from the target’s perspective. When people were ostracized they judged themselves and those who ostracized them as less human (Studies 1 and 2), and believed they were viewed as less human by the perpetrators (Study 2). In both studies, essential ‘human nature’ was the dimension of humanness most sensitive to social exclusion.     

Agency's Role in Dehumanization: Non‐human Metaphors of Out‐groups

Dehumanization, the psychological process by which individuals or groups of individuals are denied human qualities or are believed to be less than human, has important negative consequences for intergroup relations: dehumanization reduces intergroup helping and excuses aggression towards members of other groups. Current models of dehumanization are unable to explain the variety of dehumanization that occurs in metaphorical thought. For example, they cannot account for the labeling of comatose individuals as “vegetables,” nor do they adequately distinguish between of humans as predators vs. metaphors of humans as prey. We argue that this results from the paucity of attention devoted to the role of agency in the dehumanization process. The ABC model of dehumanization proposed in this paper broadens the scope of dehumanization theory by describing three unique components of agency: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. This article then delineates how the differential attribution of agency components impacts emotional responses toward out‐groups in addition to the metaphors used to describe them. By incorporating both traditional types of dehumanization (extreme and overt negative evaluations) and ambivalent types of dehumanization (mixed positive and negative evaluations) into our model, we provide a more nuanced view of the dehumanization process that accounts for the variance in dehumanization by analogy.     

Animals and androids: implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans

People commonly ascribe lesser humanness to others than to themselves. Two senses of humanness appear to be involved: attributes that are unique to humans and those that constitute essential "human nature." Denying uniquely human and human-nature attributes to other people may implicitly liken them to animals and automata, respectively. In the present study, the go/no-go association task was used to assess implicit associations among social categories exemplifying the two senses of humanness, traits representing these senses, and the two types of nonhumans. Congruent associations (among artists, human-nature traits, and animals; among businesspeople, uniquely human traits, and automata) were consistently stronger than incongruent associations. Explicit ratings supported these differential associations. Social perception may involve two subtle ways of dehumanizing others.     

From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence

Most literally, objectification refers to perceiving a person as an object, and consequently, less than fully human. Research on perceptions of humanness and the stereotype content model suggests that humanness is linked to perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Merging these insights with objectification theory, we hypothesized that focusing on a woman's, but not a man's, appearance should induce objectification, and thus reduce perceptions of these characteristics. In three studies, females, but not males, were perceived as less competent (Studies 2 and 3) and less warm and moral (Studies 1, 2 and 3) when participants were instructed to focus on their appearance. These findings support our position and help rule out stereotype activation as an alternative explanation to dehumanization. Further, they generalized to targets of different races, familiarity, physical attractiveness and occupational status. Implications for gender inequity and the perpetuation of objectification of women are discussed.     

For whom and why organizational dehumanization is linked to deviant behaviours

‘We are humans not robots!’ This protest slogan denounces a working reality in which employees perceive that they are reduced to a mere tool or instrument at the service of the organization. Such an experience refers to organizational dehumanization. Researchers have recently indicated that organizational dehumanization may shape employee work behaviours. However, why, and for whom, organizational dehumanization leads to maladaptive work behaviours remains unclear in this literature. Drawing upon social exchange theory, we first propose that employees who experience organizational dehumanization engage in a reciprocity process by first developing thoughts of revenge that, in turn, materialize into more organizational deviance. We further argue that compliance buffers the indirect effect of organizational dehumanization on deviant behaviours via thoughts of revenge. Overall, the combined results of two experimental studies, a cross-sectional study and two three-wave studies provide strong evidence for our hypothesized relationships. Our research suggests that when experiencing organizational dehumanization, compliant employees are less likely to engage in a homeomorphic reciprocity in the exchange relationship with their organization.     

Humanness beliefs about behavior: An index and comparative human-nonhuman behavior judgments

Social psychological research suggests that two distinct dimensions describe lay conceptions of humanness: a species-typical sense (i.e., human nature) and a species-unique sense (i.e., human uniqueness). Although these two senses of humanness have been discerned among psychological traits and states, there has been no systematic research into lay beliefs about the humanness of human behaviors. Using a range of 60 prosocial, nonsocial, and antisocial behaviors, it was demonstrated that people discriminate between species-typical and species-unique behaviors and that the capacity to perform species-unique behaviors distinguishes humans from animals, whereas the capacity to perform species-typical behaviors distinguishes humans from robots. Behaviors that exemplify the two senses of humanness are identified, and data representing rankings, raw scores, and z-scores in two indices of species typicality and species uniqueness are provided. Taken together, these findings expand our understanding of lay conceptions of humanness and provide researchers of humanness with a wider range of validated stimuli to probe the boundaries of humanity.     

Dehumanization of women and men in elective abortion: A preregistered replication in China

Although abortion in China has been legalized for several decades, it is still controversial and the woman and man involved are at risk of being stigmatized. The current research replicated two studies conducted in Italy by investigating how the abortion decision of the woman and man influence received moral outrage, dehumanization, and perceptions of female professional competence. Study 1, which only included female participants, found higher moral outrage toward a woman having an abortion when the pregnancy was depicted as referring to a “child” (vs. “foetus”), and higher dehumanization of the woman in terms of human nature. Study 2, which included both male and female participants, and clarified responsibility for the abortion decision with respect to the woman and the man, revealed higher moral outrage and a reduction in the attribution of human uniqueness to the man, and of human nature to both the woman and the man. Moral outrage mediated dehumanization when participants had low positive attitudes toward abortion in Study 1 and high positive attitudes in Study 2. Both studies showed a negative impact of the decision to have an abortion on the woman's perceived traditional professional competence. The results generally align with the findings from Italy and yield some practical implications on reducing abortion stigma. Future abortion stigma research should consider more gender-related factors.     

Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: the implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status

Being human implies a particular moral status: having moral value, agency, and responsibility. However, people are not seen as equally human. Across two studies, we examine the consequences that subtle variations in the perceived humanness of actors or groups have for their perceived moral status. Drawing on Haslam's two-dimensional model of humanness and focusing on three ways people may be considered to have moral status - moral patiency (value), agency, or responsibility - we demonstrate that subtly denying humanness to others has implications for whether they are blamed, praised, or considered worthy of moral concern and rehabilitation. Moreover, we show that distinct human characteristics are linked to specific judgments of moral status. This work demonstrates that everyday judgments of moral status are influenced by perceptions of humanness.     

Dehumanization and Guilt as Distinct but Related Predictors of Support for Reparation Policies

In two studies, we predicted that support for reparation policies would be influenced positively by feelings of group-based guilt and negatively by dehumanization of the outgroup. We also hypothesized that a valence manipulation of the ingroup's behavior would cause differences in such support which would be mediated by guilt. In the first study, we manipulated the valence of past ingroup behavior and assessed guilt, dehumanization, and reparation support. As expected, guilt predicted positively and dehumanization negatively participants' support. In addition, guilt partially mediated the manipulation effects on policy support. Consistent with previous research, guilt and dehumanization were unrelated. In Study 2, we assessed individual differences in dehumanization before the manipulation and examined their associations with guilt and reparation support. Initial analyses replicated Study 1. In addition, guilt partially mediated the influence of dehumanization on reparation support. Results suggest that the presence of guilt motivates support for reparation policies, while the absence of guilt explains in part why individual differences in dehumanization inhibit such support.     

Lay beliefs about the causes of and solutions to dehumanization and prejudice: do nonexperts recognize the role of human–animal relations?

We investigate laypeople's beliefs about the causes of and solutions to out‐group dehumanization and prejudice. Specifically, we examine whether nonexperts recognize the role that beliefs in the human–animal divide play in the formation and reduction of intergroup biases, as observed empirically in the interspecies model of prejudice. Interestingly, despite evidence in the present study that human–animal divide beliefs predict greater dehumanization and prejudice, participants strongly rejected the human–animal divide as a probable cause of (or solution to) dehumanization or prejudice. We conclude with a meta‐analytic test of the relation between human–animal divide and prejudice (mean r = .34) in the literature, establishing the human–animal divide as an important but largely unrecognized prejudice precursor. Applied implications for the development and implementation of prejudice interventions are considered.     

Human and Global Identities: Different Prototypical Meanings of All-Inclusive Identities

The impact of identities encompassing all human beings (e.g., human and/or global identities) on intergroup relations is complex, with studies showing mostly positive (e.g., less dehumanization), but also negative (e.g., deflected responsibility for harm behavior), effects. However, different labels and measures have been used to examine the effects of these all-inclusive superordinate identities, without a systematic empirical examination of the extent to which they overlap or differ in their sociopsychological prototypical content. This study examined whether different labels activate the same contents in laypeople's conceptualization. Two hundred and forty-eight participants openly described one of six labels: “All humans everywhere”; “People all over the world”; “People from different countries around the world”; “Global citizens”; “Citizens of the world”; and “Members of world community.” Results from quantitative content analyses showed that the different labels activated different thematic attributes, representing differences in their core prototypical meaning. We propose that a general distinction should be made between labels that define membership based on human attributes (e.g., biological attributes) and those that evoke attributes characteristic of membership in a global political community (e.g., attitudinal attributes), as their effect on intergroup relations may vary accordingly.     

Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men

We examined whether homophobic epithets (e.g., faggot) function as labels of deviance for homosexuals that contribute to their dehumanization and physical distance. Across two studies, participants were supraliminally (Study 1) and subliminally (Study 2) exposed to a homophobic epithet, a category label, or a generic insult. Participants were then asked to associate human‐related and animal‐related words to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Results showed that after exposure to a homophobic epithet, compared with a category label or a generic insult, participants associated less human‐related words with homosexuals, indicating dehumanization. In Study 2, we also assessed the effect of a homophobic epithet on physical distance from a target group member and found that homophobic epithets led to greater physical distancing of a gay man. These findings indicate that homophobic epithets foster dehumanization and avoidance of gay people, in ways that other insults or labels do not.     

Preference for consistency and value dissimilarities in dehumanization and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia

Recent research has highlighted the importance of differential attribution of uniquely human characteristics in dehumanization and prejudice. Relatively little is known, however, about the importance of perceiving dissimilarities between the ingroup and outgroup in different types of values (beyond prosocial values), or the role of preference for consistency (PFC). This study investigated values, perceived dissimilarities in values, and PFC, in dehumanization of and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia. Results from a survey of 140 Australians revealed a strong relationship between dehumanization and prejudice. Individuals with stronger conservation and self‐enhancement values, and greater perceived dissimilarity to asylum seekers on self‐transcendence and self‐enhancement values, dehumanized asylum seekers more and were more prejudiced toward them. The relationships between perceived self‐transcendence and self‐enhancement dissimilarities and prejudice were mediated by dehumanization, whereas PFC moderated the relationship between conservation value differences and dehumanization. These findings offer important insight into the conditions that promote dehumanization and prejudice, which may in turn help explain the negative perceptions of asylum seekers in Australia. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does “humanization” of the preborn explain why conservatives (vs. liberals) oppose abortion?

Those on the political right (vs. left) generally oppose abortion, with preborn humanness frequently cited as the reason. We test whether differences in preborn humanness perceptions actually underpin left–right differences in abortion support. We examine two types of right-wing ideology in student and community samples, asking whether perceptions of preborn humanness (a) explain conservative (vs. liberal) opposition to abortion; or (b) exert a greater impact on abortion opposition among conservatives (vs. liberals). Without exception, perceptions of preborn humanness explained very little of right–left differences in abortion support, and the association between preborn humanness perceptions and abortion opposition was no stronger for those on the political right (vs. left). These findings suggest that left–right differences on this critical, election-relevant social attitude are not explained by beliefs about “humanness”, contrary to popular belief.