The Drawback of Sexual Empowerment: Perceiving Women as Emancipated but Still as Sexual Objects

Sex Roles - The belief that sexualization might be used as a source of power for women in Western societies is spreading (Anderson 2014; Erchull and Liss 2013). The present research aims at...     

Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non‐uniquely” human emotions

Emotion scientists often distinguish those emotions that are encountered universally, even among animals ( “primary emotions”), from those experienced by human beings ( “secondary emotions”). No attempt, however, has ever been made to capture the lay conception about this distinction and to find the criteria on which the distinction is based. The first study presented in this paper was conducted in three countries involving four languages, so as to allow for cross‐cultural comparisons. Results showed a remarkable convergence. People from all samples not only differentiated between “uniquely human” and “non‐uniquely human” emotions on a continuum, but they did so on the same basis as the one used by emotion scientists to distinguish between “primary” and “secondary” emotions. Study 2 focused on the implicit use of such a distinction. When confronted with a human (animal) context, participants reacted faster to secondary (vs primary) emotions. The implications of the human uniqueness of some emotions within the social and interpersonal contexts are discussed.     

Infrahumanization or familiarity? Attribution of uniquely human emotions to the self, the ingroup, and the outgroup

People attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups. This effect is interpreted in terms of infrahumanization theory. Familiarity also could explain this differential attribution because secondary emotions are thought to be less visible and intense than primary ones. This alternative explanation to infrahumanization was tested in three studies. In Study 1, participants attributed, in a between-participants design, primary and secondary emotions to themselves, to their ingroup, or to an outgroup. In Study 2, participants answered for themselves and their ingroup or for themselves and an outgroup. In Study 3, participants made attributions to the ingroup or a series of outgroups varying in terms of familiarity. The data do not support an explanation in terms of familiarity. The discussion centers on conditions not conducting to infrahumanization.     

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.     

The automaticity of infra‐humanization

This research tested the infra‐humanization hypothesis that uniquely human emotions (e.g., love, sorrow) are automatically more linked in memory with the in‐group than with the out‐group. No such difference is expected for non‐uniquely human emotions (e.g., joy, sadness) which pertain to everybody, including animals. Two studies using semantic primes followed by visual person categorization task (PCT) and lexical (lexical decision task, LDT) targets were conducted. Results supported infra‐humanization theory. Reaction times were faster for the in‐group/secondary emotions associations than for out‐group/secondary emotions ones. As predicted, no difference in latency times appeared for primary emotions as a function of the groups. These findings elucidate the ambiguity present in Paladino et al. ( 2002 ). Theoretical and practical implications are suggested. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

My Physical Appearance at the Center of Others’ Concerns: What are the Consequences for Women’s Metadehumanization and Emotions?

Despite the frequency of women’s exposure to sexually objectifying behaviors in their daily life (e.g., through comments on their appearance, gazing or touching), no previous work has investigated how such a focus on their physical appearance influences women’s meta-perceptions. Capitalizing on recent studies showing that sexually objectified women are dehumanized by both male and female participants, the present paper investigates women’s metadehumanization (i.e., their perceptions of being viewed as less than fully human) and its emotional consequences following interpersonal sexual objectification. In three studies, we showed that when an interaction partner focuses on their physical appearance, women report higher levels of metadehumanization, as well as increased anger and sadness, than when the partner focuses on non-physical parts. Theoretical and empirical contributions of the present findings are discussed.     

We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection,group‐based emotions and prejudice against immigrants

Immigration, cultural diversity and integration are among the most central challenges for modern societies. Integration is often impeded by negative emotions and prejudices held by the majority members towards immigrants in a common society. Based on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), we examined the impact of perceived relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Additionally, we examined whether this impact is causal and explored the issue of causality in more detail contrasting a linear causal model with bi‐directional or reciprocal causality. Hypotheses were tested in a study with a two‐wave panel of majority members (N=1085) in Germany. We examined the proposed relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice and determined the causal direction of these relationships. Results support the predictive power of relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Moreover, most causal relations between our measures are reciprocally causal. We discuss the implications of these findings for the general conception of prejudice and intergroup emotions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Motivation to support a desired conclusion versus motivation to avoid an undesirable conclusion: The case of infra‐humanization

Social motivation has been shown to influence various cognitive processes. In the present paper, it is verified that people are motivated to view out‐groups as possessing a lesser degree of humanity than the in‐group (Leyens et al., 2000 ) and that this motivation influences logical processing in the Wason selection task. So far, studies on infra‐humanization have been shown to influence attribution of uniquely human characteristics to groups. Most of these studies focused on the attribution of secondary emotions. Results have shown that secondary emotions are preferentially attributed to in‐group members (Leyens et al., 2001 ). Also, people tend to react differently to in‐group and out‐group members displaying secondary emotions (Gaunt, Leyens, & Sindic, 2004 ; Vaes, Paladino, Castelli, Leyens, & Giovanazzi, 2003 ). In the present paper, it is argued that infra‐humanization is a two‐direction bias and that it does influence logical processing among perceivers. Specifically, infra‐humanization motivation impacts logical processing in two different directions. First, most motivation is spent to reach the desirable conclusion that the in‐group is uniquely human. Second, least motivation occurs to support the undesirable conclusion that the out‐group is uniquely human. These hypotheses are tested in four cross‐cultural studies that varied the status and the conflicting relations between groups. Results were in line with the predictions and further confirmed that infra‐humanization biases can be obtained independently of status and conflict (but see Cortes, Demoulin, Leyens, & de Renesse, 2005 ). The discussion relates these findings with in‐group favouritism and out‐group derogation (Brewer, 1999 ) and underlines the importance of infra‐humanization in counteracting system justification biases (Jost & Banaji, 1994 ).     

The lay distinction between primary and secondary emotions: A spontaneous categorization?

In line with the psychological essentialism perspective, Leyens et al. ( 13 2000) have hypothesized that people attribute different essences to groups and that they attribute more uniquely human characteristics to their own group than to out‐groups. Leyens et al. have focused on two types of emotions, which in Roman languages have specific labels, such as sentimientos and emociones in Spanish. A cross‐cultural study showed that sentimientos (or secondary emotions) are considered uniquely human emotions whereas emociones (or primary emotions) are perceived as nonuniquely human emotions. The present study focuses on whether this categorization into primary and secondary emotions is a spontaneous distinction that people use in their everyday lives, or whether, on the contrary, it is the result of experimental demands. The paradigm “Who says what to whom” was used to test this question. Geometrical shapes of different colours were systematically associated with different stimuli that varied in meaningfulness. In a first condition, shapes were associated with small or large items of furniture (meaningful categories) and with primary and secondary emotions. In a second condition, the items of furniture were replaced by words ending with a vowel or a consonant (meaningless categories). Subsequently, participants had to recognize which shape was associated with each stimulus. Intra‐category errors were significantly more numerous than inter‐category errors, except for the words ending with a vowel or a consonant. Stated otherwise, types of emotions were recognized like the meaningful difference between items of furniture. These results show that the distinction between primary and secondary emotions is an implicit one that people use spontaneously, and not as a result of task demands. The findings are discussed from the perspective of psychological essentialism and inter‐group relations.     

Emotional prejudice,essentialism, and nationalism The 2002 Tajfel lecture

In explaining differences between groups, people ascribe the human essence to their ingroup and consider outgroups as less human. This phenomenon, called infra‐humanization, occurs outside people's awareness. Because secondary emotions (e.g. love, hope, contempt, resentment) are considered uniquely human emotions, people not only attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups, but are reluctant to associate these emotions with outgroups. Moreover, people behave less cooperatively (in terms of altruism, imitation, and approach) with an outgroup member who expresses himself through secondary emotions. Infra‐humanization occurs for high and low status groups, even in the absence of conflict between groups. It does not occur when the outgroup target is adequately individualized, by a complete name or through perspective taking, for instance. The differential familiarity with the ingroup and the outgroup cannot explain infra‐humanization. Yet, preliminary results show that subjective essentialism and ingroup identification may mediate the effects of infra‐humanization. A connection is made between nationalism and infra‐humanization. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.