Outgroup Dehumanization Research Articles

“Today I Die like Jesus Christ”: An Analysis of Ressentiment in Perceptions, Motivations and Justifications of Violent Extremist Manifestos

ABSTRACT Far-right extremists distribute digital manifestos alongside their violent attacks as a method of sensationalizing their acts, dispersing their ideology, and garnering followers. This study sheds light on the psychological characteristics of the perceptions, motivations, and justifications evident in their manifestos. We analyze their self-perceptions as martyrs, warriors, or saviors, their perceptions of world injustice, their motivations of grievance, humiliation, seeking revenge and defense and their justifications founded on absolutist thinking, moral disengagement and us vs. them divisions—mapping out how they deliver their message through the emotional mechanism of ressentiment. We show the complexity of the manifestos content, particularly in reference to the way extremists present themselves as martyrs, warriors, or saviors, the pervasive reference of grievances and frustrations, the shallow social bonds and outgroup dehumanization, their strong motivations to seek revenge and defend, and the morally disengaged justifications of their intentions and actions. This project addresses an important gap in extant literature and offers valuable insights to academics and practitioners on the discourses that promote mobilization and engagement with political violence.

Attitudes moralization and outgroup dehumanization in the dynamic between pro‐ vs. anti‐vaccines against COVID‐19

AbstractAttitudes towards socially sensitive topics tend to be polarized and moralized. Literature showed that in the political arena people tend to consider their group different from the outgroup in moral terms, and how this perceived distance is capable of producing discrimination against the outgroup. In light of this evidence, the aim of this study (N = 234) was to examine the dynamics between Pro‐vaxers and No‐vaxers in relation to the SARS‐COV‐2 vaccine. Participants evaluated the strength of their attitude towards the COVID‐19 vaccine, and the extent to which this attitude was moralized. They reported the perceived moral distance between the ingroup and the outgroup and completed a scale of outgroup animalistic dehumanization. Results showed a positive association between the strength of the attitude towards the vaccine and its moralization. The tendency to moralize the attitude was positively associated with the perception of moral distance between ingroup and outgroup, and this positively associated with the outgroup dehumanization. A sequential mediation model showed an indirect effect that links attitude strength to dehumanization through attitude moralization and the perception of moral distance between groups. Results are discussed in the light of recent theories on the moralization of attitudes and its importance in institutional communication. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.

Dehumanization after all: Distinguishing intergroup evalutation from trait-based dehumanization

Over the last two decades, a plethora of research using a large variety of measures and paradigms has demonstrated how people often tend to dehumanize members of certain outgroups. When trait-based measures were used, ingroup members showed to attribute less human positive and negative characteristics to members of the outgroup. Enock, Flavell, Tipper, and Over (2021) recently criticized these findings stating that previous work on this topic has investigated the attribution of mostly socially desirable human traits making it impossible to determine that trait-based dehumanization is distinct from intergroup preferences. In a set of studies in which they balanced the human and non-human traits for valence, they did not find any evidence for outgroup dehumanization. Using the same experimental material, the current work conceptually replicated a subsample of these studies in two pre-registered experiments introducing a more parsimonious measure of dehumanization that is based on a large number of traits and takes both the variance in typicality and humanness judgments into account, at the same time allowing for a rigid control of the valence of the traits. Results clearly indicated the presence of a dehumanization effect in both studies over and above intergroup evaluations. As such, these results are in line with previous work on dehumanization and highlight the risks of gauging dehumanization through the attribution of a small number of fixed human traits that are not controlled for their desirability.

The Early Expression of Blatant Dehumanization in Children and Its Association with Outgroup Negativity.

Dehumanization is observed in adults across cultures and is thought to motivate human violence. The age of its first expression remains largely untested. This research demonstrates that diverse representations of humanness, including a novel one, readily elicit blatant dehumanization in adults (N = 482) and children (aged 5-12; N = 150). Dehumanizing responses in both age groups are associated with support for outgroup inferiority. Similar to the link previously observed in adults, dehumanization by children is associated with a willingness to punish outgroup transgressors. These findings suggest that exposure to cultural norms throughout adolescence and adulthood are not required for the development of outgroup dehumanization.

Apology and Its Acceptance: Perceived Reconciliatory Attitudes Reduce Outgroup Dehumanization.

Based on real-life intergroup animosities originating from a historical conflict, the current study examined how the perceived stance of the outgroup about the conflict affects the dehumanization of the outgroup. In Study 1 (N = 120), Korean undergraduates attributed more human nature to the Japanese after reading an article that the Japanese government did (vs. refused to) issue an official apology for a historical wrong. In turn, the more human nature assigned to the Japanese predicted higher expectations about positive mutual relations in the future. Similarly, in Study 2 (N = 209), Japanese undergraduates attributed more human uniqueness to Koreans after reading an article that an official apology for a historical wrong from Japan was accepted (vs. rejected) by Koreans. The higher the perceived human uniqueness of Koreans was, the higher were the willingness to help and the expectations of a positive relationship in the future. The findings demonstrate how mutual dehumanization can be reduced as a result of the other side’s reconciliatory stances and can further contribute to improving intergroup relations.

Can conservatives who (de)humanize immigrants the most be able to support them? The power of imagined positive contact

AbstractDespite studies examining political ideology, group dehumanization, and intergroup contact as predictors of intergroup support and affect, research on their interplay in shaping such outcomes has been limited. In fact, considering the possibility that conservatives might view immigrants in various ways (as more or less human) is important to understand the impact of interventions (positive imagined contact) on intergroup relations. The results of two experiments (N = 671) with U.S. citizens in relation to two outgroups—Muslim immigrants in Experiment 1 and Mexican immigrants in Experiment 2—consistently showed that imagined positive contact condition (vs. control/no contact condition) influenced intergroup support (i.e., in both experiments) and positive emotions (i.e., in Experiment 2) more for individuals who endorsed a conservative ideology and scored high for dehumanizing immigrants. Participants’ willingness to attribute positive emotions to outgroup members ultimately explained the observed effects. In this research, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for intergroup relations and outgroup dehumanization.

A social virus: Intergroup dehumanization and unwillingness to aid amidst COVID-19 − Who are the main targets?

Previous studies have shown that external threats, such as financial crises and natural disasters, might fuel negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviors towards outgroup members. However, it is unclear what types of outgroups are likely to be targeted when an external threat is taking its toll. In this study, we examine two types of outgroups that might be at risk of becoming victims of intergroup hostility. The first is the “ultimate scapegoat” outgroup which has a long history of negative relations with the ingroup. The second is the "context-dependent" outgroup which is viewed as an outgroup only in certain contexts. We utilized the COVID-19 crisis and the highly diverse social makeup of Israeli society to explore the extent to which each type of outgroup would be targeted. Results from our study (N = 664), conducted during the first peak of COVID-19 in Israel, show that higher levels of exposure to COVID-19 predicted lower willingness to aid outgroups and that outgroup dehumanization mediated this association. However, this held true only when the target outgroup was a context-dependent outgroup. When the target group was the ultimate scapegoat, exposure to COVID-19 did not predict ingroup willingness to aid them. Our findings contribute to our theoretical and practical knowledge on how intergroup hostility proliferates during external threats and, as such, are valuable to scholars, practitioners, and policymakers working to reduce intergroup tensions during large-scale crises.

Meta-humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat.

Meta-dehumanization, the perception your group has been given less than human qualities, contributes to a vicious cycle of outgroup dehumanization and hostility, such as hate crimes and support for discriminatory policies. Minimal research has investigated potential benefits of meta-humanization, or perceiving your group has been given dignified qualities. Across 7 studies (N = 1,261) in Canada and the United Kingdom, we focus on Muslim-non-Muslim relations and provide the first empirical evidence to suggest that (a) there is an indirect effect of meta-humanization through outgroup humanization that reduces prejudice and (b) that perceived high intergroup threat moderates the indirect effect of meta-humanization. Studies 1a and 1b reveal that humanization mediates the indirect effect of meta-humanization on prejudice. Studies 2a and 2b replicate these results as well as demonstrate that perceived threat moderates the indirect effect, and Study 2c extends this by testing the perspective of Muslims. Studies 3a and 3b further demonstrate an interaction between high threat and meta-humanization on prejudice and interest in intergroup contact. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for the growing literature on meta-dehumanization, meta-humanization, and intergroup relations more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Terrorist threat, dehumanization, and right‐wing authoritarianism as predictors of discrimination

This study analyzed the relationship between terrorist threat and discrimination, operationalized by support for retributive justice against Islamic groups suspect of terrorist crimes. Two experimental studies were performed. Study 1 (N=215) showed that the terrorist threat against the ingroup raises the support for the retributive procedures through the dehumanization of the outgroup. Study 2 (N=304) analyzed how the mediating role of dehumanization in the relationship between terrorist threat and support for retributive justice is moderated by right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In addition, the study aimed to verify if the dehumanization of outgroup and RWA could explain the relationship between terrorist threat and discrimination of Muslim immigrants. The results indicated that adherence to RWA favors dehumanization of the outgroup and, consecutively, the discrimination, operationalized as support for the use of retributive justice. The adherence to RWA has been identified as the mechanism that explains the discrimination against Muslim immigrants.

We share the euro, but not our humanity: Humanity attributions are associated with the perceived causes, consequences, and solution to the Greek financial crisis

Political and financial crises are complex and multi-determined situations whose solutions depend on multiple factors. To understand these conflicts, we explore to what extent mutual outgroup dehumanization along with ingroup humanization between the parts involved in the conflict predict the interpretation of the different facets of the political situation (i.e. interpretation of the crisis, the perceived consequences, or the possible solutions). In this article, we focused on the dispute between Germany and Greece catalyzed by a Greek referendum in 2015. We assessed to what extent mutual (de)humanization between Germans and Greeks predicted the interpretation of the conflict. Our results showed a mutual dehumanization: Greeks mechanizing Germans and Germans animalizing Greeks. For Germans, dehumanizing the Greeks was linked to worse perceived Greek financial administration and minimizing the perception of the Greeks’ suffering, whereas humanizing the ingroup was associated with more outgroup responsibility. For Greeks, dehumanizing the Germans was associated with a desire to avoid German financial control, whereas ingroup humanization was associated with better financial administration, less responsibility, and a higher perception of suffering among Greeks. In short, dehumanizing the other members of the European Union (EU) while humanizing their own nationality contributed to the neglect of the problems inside the EU, shaping the understanding of the economic conflict among both nations.

과거 잘못에 대한 집단 간 사과의 역설적 효과 : 외집단 비인간화를 중심으로

과거 잘못에 대한 집단 간 사과의 역설적 효과 : 외집단 비인간화를 중심으로

On the Cognitive Determinants of Out-Group Dehumanization: Illusory Correlation and the Dehumanization of (Numerical) Group Minorities

Humanness is something generally associated with the in-group and denied to out-groups. However, not all out-groups are equally deprived of their humanness. Correlational studies suggest that numerical minorities (from the perceiver's perspective) are more likely to be judged as less than human. In the present research, we interpreted this phenomenon in terms of the cognitive processes involved in illusory correlation and identified and tested the conditions (i.e., humanness as a frequent and shared characteristic, and relative small group size) that would contribute to minority dehumanization. In two studies in which participants learned about members of two new groups differing in size, we found support for this account. The findings of the present research broaden the current knowledge of out-group dehumanization, showing the contribution of cognitive processes in the denial of humanness to minority groups. Implications for the understanding of the determinants of group dehumanization and illusory correlation are discussed.

The effect of disgust-eliciting media portrayals on outgroup dehumanization and support of deportation in a Norwegian sample

The effect of disgust-eliciting media portrayals on outgroup dehumanization and support of deportation in a Norwegian sample

They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.

Although the act of dehumanizing an outgroup is a pervasive and potent intergroup process that drives discrimination and conflict, no formal research has examined the consequences of being dehumanized by an outgroup-that is, "metadehumanization." Across 10 studies (N = 3,440) involving several real-world conflicts spanning 3 continents, we provide the first empirical evidence that metadehumanization (a) plays a central role in outgroup aggression that is (b) mediated by outgroup dehumanization, and (c) distinct from metaprejudice. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate experimentally that Americans who learn that Arabs (Study 1a) or Muslims (Study 1b) blatantly dehumanize Americans are more likely to dehumanize that outgroup in return; by contrast, experimentally increasing outgroup dehumanization did not increase metadehumanization (Study 1c). Using correlational data, Study 2 documents indirect effects of metadehumanization on Americans' support for aggressive policies toward Arabs (e.g., torture) via Arab dehumanization. In the context of Hungarians and ethnic minority Roma, Study 3 shows that the pathway for Hungarians from metadehumanization to aggression through outgroup dehumanization holds controlling for outgroup prejudice. Study 4 examines Israelis' metaperceptions with respect to Palestinians, showing that: (a) feeling dehumanized (i.e., metadehumanization) is distinct from feeling disliked (i.e., metaprejudice), and (b) metadehumanization uniquely influences aggression through outgroup dehumanization, controlling for metaprejudice. Studies 5a and 5b explore Americans' metaperceptions regarding ISIS and Iran. We document a dehumanization-specific pathway from metadehumanization to aggressive attitudes and behavior that is distinct from the path from metaprejudice through prejudice to aggression. In Study 6, American participants learning that Muslims humanize Americans (i.e., metahumanization) humanize Muslims in turn. Finally, Study 7 experimentally contrasts metadehumanization and metahumanization primes, and shows that resulting differences in outgroup dehumanization are mediated by (a) perceived identity threat, and (b) a general desire to reciprocate the outgroup's perceptions of the ingroup. In summary, our research outlines how and why metadehumanization contributes to cycles of ongoing violence and animosity, providing direction for future research and policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Real or Artificial? Intergroup Biases in Mind Perception in a Cross-Cultural Perspective.

Recent research suggests that attributions of aliveness and mental capacities to faces are influenced by social group membership. In this article, we investigated group related biases in mind perception in participants from a Western and Eastern culture, employing faces of varying ethnic groups. In Experiment 1, Caucasian faces that ranged on a continuum from real to artificial were evaluated by participants in the UK (in-group) and in India (out-group) on animacy, abilities to plan and to feel pain, and having a mind. Human features were found to be assigned to a greater extent to faces when these belonged to in-group members, whereas out-group faces had to appear more realistic in order to be perceived as human. When participants in India evaluated South Asian (in-group) and Caucasian (out-group) faces in Experiment 2, the results closely mirrored those of the first experiment. For both studies, ratings of out-group faces were significantly predicted by participants’ levels of ethnocultural empathy. The findings highlight the role of intergroup processes (i.e., in-group favoritism, out-group dehumanization) in the perception of human and mental qualities and point to ethnocultural empathy as an important factor in responses to out-groups.

The effect of disgust-eliciting media portrayals on outgroup dehumanization and support of deportation in a Norwegian sample

Public discourse regarding the Roma has been heated in many western European countries. This study investigates whether feelings of disgust, elicited through negative media portrayals, can lead to more dehumanization and support of deportation toward this minority. While Study 1 (N=30) validated a measure of dehumanization in the Norwegian context, Study 2 (N=195) experimentally tested whether disgust-eliciting media portrayals would increase dehumanization tendencies on this validated measure and support of deportation toward the Roma. As expected, reading a newspaper article focusing on allegedly low hygienic standards among the Roma increased the feeling of disgust, which, in turn, led to higher degrees of dehumanization and support of deportation. While being the first study experimentally showing that disgust leads to dehumanization of a real societal minority group, the results also have important implications for how media discusses and presents social issues regarding devalued minority groups.

Awareness of Intergroup Help Can Rehumanize the Out-Group

Dehumanizing the enemy is one of the most destructive elements of intergroup conflict. Past research demonstrated that awareness of harm that the in-group imposed on a specific out-group can increase out-group dehumanization as means of justifying the harm. In this research, we examined whether the opposite process would occur when people become aware of help given to an adversary. We reasoned that the need to justify a good deed toward a persistent enemy can result in more human-like out-group attributions. In two experiments, Israeli-Jews read about their group either helping Palestinians or not. In Study 1, awareness of help provided by the in-group to the out-group resulted in greater out-group humanization. In Study 2, we further established that when a third party helped the out-group, the rehumanization effect was not obtained, suggesting that the phenomenon is of specific intergroup nature. Theoretical and applied implications for conflict resolution are discussed.

Bleeding-Heart Liberals and Hard-Hearted Conservatives: Subtle Political Dehumanization Through Differential Attributions of Human Nature and Human Uniqueness Traits

This research demonstrated that human nature (HN) and human uniqueness (HU) traits capture the content of Americans’ stereotypes about liberals and conservatives, respectively. Consistent with expectations derived from dehumanization theory, people more strongly associated HN traits with liberals than with conservatives, and more strongly associated HU traits with conservatives than with liberals. A trait × target ideology × perceiver ideology × trait valence interaction suggested that both liberals and conservatives more strongly associated their ingroup with stereotype-consistent positive traits, and their outgroup with stereotype-consistent negative traits. Mediation analyses revealed that outgroup antipathy, but not ingroup liking, explained the relationship between ideology and political outgroup dehumanization. Finally, humanness traits captured subtle differences in political stereotype content not captured with the warmth and competence dimensions derived from the stereotype content model. Together, these results indicate that differential attributions of HN and HU traits capture political stereotype content and function to subtly dehumanize one’s political opponents.

Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization

Outgroup dehumanization figures centrally in historical intergroup violence, yet little is known about the factors that promote dehumanized perceptions of others. Drawing on research highlighting the importance of disgust-relevant social categorizations and disgust sensitivity to outgroup dehumanization, the authors hypothesized that feelings of disgust causally facilitate dehumanized social cognition. To test this hypothesis, participants ( N = 94) were randomly assigned to receive inductions of disgusted, sad, or neutral emotions. We then assessed their implicit associations between animals and an arbitrary outgroup created with a minimal-groups procedure. Results showed that although all participants demonstrated dehumanizing biases, disgusted participants showed the strongest associations between the outgroup and animals (and the ingroup with humanity). Participants in the sad and neutral groups did not differ. Disgust thus appears to have the unique capacity to foster the social-cognitive dehumanization of outgroup members.

Bleeding-Heart Liberals and Hard-Hearted Conservatives: Subtle Political Dehumanization Through Differential Attributions of Human Nature and Human Uniqueness Traits

This research demonstrated that human nature (HN) and human uniqueness (HU) traits capture the content of people’s stereotypes about liberals and conservatives, respectively. Consistent with expectations derived from dehumanization theory, people more strongly associated HN traits with liberals than with conservatives, and more strongly associated HU traits with conservatives than with liberals. A trait × target ideology × perceiver ideology × trait valence interaction suggested that both liberals and conservatives more strongly associated their in-group with stereotype-consistent positive qualities, and their out-group with stereotype-consistent negative qualities. Mediation analyses revealed that out-group antipathy, but not in-group liking, explained the relationship between ideology and political out-group dehumanization. Finally, humanness traits captured subtle differences in political stereotype content not captured with the warmth and competence ratings derived from the stereotype content model. Together, these results indicate that differential attributions of HN and HU traits capture political stereotype content and function to subtly dehumanize one’s political opponents.