Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio-economic status and attribution of humanity

The mediating role of attributions of poverty and wealth in the relationship between perceptions of economic inequality and redistribution preferences

Previous research has identified that the relationship between perceived economic inequality and supporting redistribution is mediated by beliefs about what causes poverty. Despite its usefulness, this approach has failed to recognize the role of perceived causes of wealth in explaining the relationship between these two variables. We conducted correlational (N = 523) and experimental (N = 226) studies, demonstrating that in contexts with high inequality, attributing poverty and wealth primarily to external factors resulted in greater support for redistribution. Furthermore, the attributions that served as mediators varied depending on the proposed redistributive measure. We delve into the significance of wealth attributional processes in understanding attitudes toward redistribution.

Perceived economic inequality enlarges the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-socioeconomic status groups

In this paper, we analyze the influence of the perceived level of economic inequality in daily life on people's recognition of the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-socioeconomic groups within society. To achieve this purpose, in Studies 1A-B, we analyzed the relationship between economic inequality and the humanity gap. In Studies 2A-B, we manipulated the level of inequality (low vs. high) to identify differences in the humanity gap. Results indicated that higher perceptions of economic inequality lead individuals to recognize a wider humanity gap between low- and high-socioeconomic groups in society. Implications are discussed.

Not all ballots should be considered equal: How education-based dehumanization undermines the democratic social contract

Less educated people are viewed negatively and their opinions are belittled in our society. Besides, along with other groups, they are underrepresented in the political arena which questions the legitimacy of democratic systems. Despite the existence of education-based devaluation, research on how people dehumanize individuals and groups with lesser education and minimize their democratic rights is scarce. In this project, we provide correlational evidence that less (vs. highly) educated individuals and groups are dehumanized (Study 1a, N = 304) and their democratic rights (voting, running for office) are questioned (Study 1b, N = 504). Furthermore, we identified that dehumanization tendencies of the less (vs. highly) educated targets predict support for denying them voting rights or the capability to run for public candidacies (Study 2, N = 447). Finally, an experimental study confirmed that the target's educational background influences attributions of humanity, which in turn seem to affect the denial of democratic rights to the target (Study 3, N = 470). These findings suggest that education-based dehumanization might undermine the inalienable democratic rights of lesser educated individuals and groups thus endangering the foundations of democratic systems.

A Functional and Neuroanatomical Model of Dehumanization

The dehumanization of others is a major scourge of mankind; however, despite its significance, physicians have little understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms for this behavior. We can learn much about dehumanization from its brain-behavior localization and its manifestations in people with brain disorders. Dehumanization as an act of denying to others human qualities includes two major forms. Animalistic dehumanization (also called infrahumanization) results from increased inhibition of prepotent tendencies for emotional feelings and empathy for others. The mechanism may be increased activity in the inferior frontal gyrus. In contrast, mechanistic dehumanization results from a loss of perception of basic human nature and decreased mind-attribution. The mechanism may be hypofunction of a mentalization network centered in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and adjacent subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. Whereas developmental factors may promote animalistic dehumanization, brain disorders, such as frontotemporal dementia, primarily promote mechanistic dehumanization. The consideration of these two processes as distinct, with different neurobiological origins, could help guide efforts to mitigate expression of this behavior.

The tendency to dehumanize, group malleability beliefs, and perceived threat from migrants in Hungary

Examining the humanness attributed to several groups in a comprehensive Hungarian sample (N = 505) at the height of the “European refugee crisis of 2015,” we found that Hungarians dehumanize Eastern ethnic groups more and Western ethnic groups less than they do to their own ethnic ingroup. Interestingly, we also found that a general tendency of dehumanization is expressed across all national groups. This general tendency of dehumanization was strongly associated with threat perceived from migrants, but the relationship was mediated by group malleability—the belief that human groups can change and are not set in their ways irreversibly. Malleability beliefs were negatively linked to dehumanization tendencies and threat perceived from migrants. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings that point to the critical role of fixed mindsets about groups in the mechanisms linked to prejudice in a highly xenophobic Hungarian context.

Not all poor are equal: the perpetuation of poverty through blaming those who have been poor all their lives

The economic crisis of 2008 severely affected the welfare states. As the economic situation of a country worsens, the resources that the public administration can devote to improve the situation of the people also decrease, endangering the advancement of those in a disadvantaged situation. People who have always lived in poverty, besides having their opportunities reduced, also face negative public views that affect the perceived legitimacy of such public aid, which can in turn be a mechanism for perpetuating their situation. Two studies (N = 252 and N = 266) analyse how a person in persistent poverty is perceived compared to a person in poverty due to the crisis-a circumstantial poverty. We also study some feasible mechanisms underlying this different perception, as well as their effects on attitudes toward social protection policies. In Study 1, results indicated that people showed more favourable attitudes toward social protection policies when they perceived someone in poverty due to the crisis, compared to the target who had been in poverty all his/her life. Individualistic attributions for poverty mediated this effect: when people think of someone in persistent poverty, they make more individualistic attributions concerning their situation, which leads to worse attitudes toward social protection policies. Identification with the group moderates this relation. Furthermore, Study 2 showed that participants perceive people who are in poverty because of economic crisis as more deserving of help than people who have always been poor. Some theoretical and practical implications for intergroup relations and public policy are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03804-6.

Not Humans, but Animals or Machines

Abstract. The aims of the present research are (1) to provide empirical evidence on animalization and, especially, mechanization in childhood and (2) to determine if outgroup stereotypical characteristics influence the dehumanization strategy chosen by children. In Study 1 (Study 1A: N = 77, Mage = 13.18; Study 1B: N = 140, Mage = 12.28), we investigated whether children associate machine-related words with the outgroup (Japanese) to a greater extent than with the ingroup (Spanish). In Study 2 (Study 2A: N = 118, Mage = 11.72; Study 2B: N = 142, Mage = 11.66), we examined whether the perception of competence (Japanese-high competence vs. Arabs-low competence) determines the dehumanization strategy used by children. The results show that children are capable of animalizing but also mechanizing and that the stereotypical characteristics of outgroups affect the form of dehumanization used.

The Two Faces of Support for Redistribution in Colombia: Taxing the Wealthy or Assisting People in Need

Support for redistribution is crucial for reducing economic inequality. Despite people's desire for reducing extreme inequalities, they still have mixed opinions regarding how to do so. The aim of the article is to examine the underlying latent dimensions of support for redistribution and test its correlates to perceptions of and attitudes toward inequality. In two studies, we found that support for redistribution can be modeled as a latent construct depicting two different dimensions: one focused on taxing the wealthy and changing the income distribution schema, and other focused on assisting people in need and providing opportunities. We also found that the dimension related to taxing the wealthy (vs. assisting people in need) displayed higher internal reliability and correlated consistently with perceptions and attitudes toward inequality: the higher the support for taxing the wealthy, the higher the perceptions and concerns of inequality, and the lower the inequality-justifying ideologies. This research unveils distinct underlying dimensions of support for redistribution that shed light on different motivations that drive people's redistributive preferences.

Animalistic dehumanisation as a social influence strategy

The phenomenon of animalistic dehumanisation has been extensively studied in social psychology, but mostly as an intergroup relations tool used to justify the mistreatment of an outgroup. Surprisingly, however, dehumanisation has not been approached as an influence strategy to convince the ingroup to mistreat an outgroup. In the present article, we investigate these possible influence effects. We propose that a message depicting an outgroup in negative animalised terms would lead to lasting unfavourable outgroup attitudes because the animal essence conveyed through the message would immunise ingroup members against subsequent counterinfluence attempts. In one experimental study we compared the effect of three influence messages depicting a despised outgroup (Roma beggars) in negative animalised vs. negative humanised vs. positive humanised terms, followed by a counterpropaganda message advocating for Roma beggars' rights. Results show that the animalisation message leads to a lasting animalised perception of the outgroup (eliciting disgust and repugnancy) that resists exposure to the counterpropaganda positive message. In contrast, the negative humanisation message provokes a brief negative perception of the group (pre-counterpropaganda) that disappears after exposure to the counterpropaganda. The animalisation message also leads to more negative attitudes and discriminatory behavioural intentions towards Roma beggars expressed after the counterpropaganda message (i.e., discrimination in the workplace, hiring intentions, and social proximity), whilst the negative humanisation message does not, showing no difference with the positive humanisation message. These results suggest that animalistic dehumanisation indeed acts as an influence strategy, immunising targets against subsequent counterpropaganda attempts. We discuss implications in the light of essentialisation, forms of dehumanisation and group status, and current non-discriminatory norms.

Less human, more to blame: Animalizing poor people increases blame and decreases support for wealth redistribution

Increasing economic inequality adversely affects groups with low socioeconomic status (low-SES). However, many people are opposed to wealth redistribution policies. In this context, we examined whether dehumanization of low-SES groups has a role in this opposition. In the first study ( N = 303), opposition to wealth redistribution was related to denying human uniqueness (e.g., intelligence and rationality) and having negative attitudes toward low-SES groups, more than denying human nature (e.g., emotionality and capacity to suffer) to low-SES groups. Mediation analyses indicated that this effect occurred via blaming low-SES groups for their plight, after controlling for participants’ SES and negative attitudes towards low-SES groups. In the second study ( N = 220), manipulating the human uniqueness of a fictitious low-SES group affected support for wealth redistribution measures through blame. These results indicate that animalizing low-SES groups reduces support for wealth redistribution via blaming low-SES groups for their situation.

Where Does the Money Come From? Humanizing High Socioeconomic Status Groups Undermines Attitudes Toward Redistribution

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of general impoverishment is a major problem in some modern societies. However, there is a general opposition to redistribution policies or to the application of a progressive taxation system. The goal of this research was to explore one factor that might drive the attitudes toward income redistribution: The (de)humanization of high socioeconomic status groups. Previous studies have shown that high socioeconomic status groups tend to be considered as unemotional machines without any concern for others. However, the consequences of mechanizing (vs. humanizing) high socioeconomic status on the interpretation of socioeconomic differences has not been explored yet. We considered that humanizing high socioeconomic status groups might have an unexpected negative effect on attitudes about income inequality and wealth concentration. Specifically, this research aims to determine how humanizing high socioeconomic status groups influences people's perceptions of the group's wealth and preferences for income redistribution. We conducted two studies in which we manipulated the humanity (mechanized vs. humanized in terms of their Human Nature traits) of a high socioeconomic status group. Results of these two studies showed that humanizing (vs. mechanizing) high socioeconomic status groups led to lower support for income redistribution/taxation of wealthy groups, through considering that the group's wealth comes from internal sources (e.g., ambition) rather than external ones (e.g., corruption). These results were independent of the group's likeability and perceived competence/warmth. The present research provides valuable insight about the possible dark side of humanizing high socioeconomic status groups as a process that could contribute to the maintenance of the status quo and the legitimation of income inequality in our societies.