When in Rome… Identification and acculturation strategies among minority members moderate the dehumanisation of the majority outgroup

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 enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare

Historically, dehumanization has enabled members of advantaged groups to ‘morally disengage’ from disadvantaged group suffering, thereby facilitating acts of intergroup aggression such as colonization, slavery and genocide. But is blatant dehumanization exclusive to those at the top ‘looking down’, or might disadvantaged groups similarly dehumanize those who dominate them? We examined this question in the context of intergroup warfare in which the disadvantaged group shoulders a disproportionate share of casualties and may be especially likely to question the humanity of the advantaged group. Specifically, we assessed blatant dehumanization in the context of stark asymmetric conflict between Israelis (Study 1; N = 521) and Palestinians (Study 2; N = 354) during the 2014 Gaza war. We observed that (a) community samples of Israelis and Palestinians expressed extreme (and comparable) levels of blatant dehumanization, (b) blatant dehumanization was uniquely associated with outcomes related to outgroup hostility for both groups, even after accounting for political ideologies known to strongly predict outgroup aggression, and (c) the strength of association between blatant dehumanization and outcomes was similar across both groups. This study illuminates the striking potency and symmetry of blatant dehumanization among those on both sides of an active asymmetric conflict.

Backlash

Research suggests that members of advantaged groups who feel dehumanized by other groups respond aggressively. But little is known about how meta-dehumanization affects disadvantaged minority group members, historically the primary targets of dehumanization. We examine this important question in the context of the 2016 U.S. Republican Primaries, which have witnessed the widespread derogation and dehumanization of Mexican immigrants and Muslims. Two initial studies document that Americans blatantly dehumanize Mexican immigrants and Muslims; this dehumanization uniquely predicts support for aggressive policies proposed by Republican nominees, and dehumanization is highly associated with supporting Republican candidates (especially Donald Trump). Two further studies show that, in this climate, Latinos and Muslims in the United States feel heavily dehumanized, which predicts hostile responses including support for violent versus non-violent collective action and unwillingness to assist counterterrorism efforts. Our results extend theorizing on dehumanization, and suggest that it may have cyclical and self-fulfilling consequences.