Social, psychological, and demographic characteristics of dehumanization toward immigrants

Introducing IOS11 as an extended interactive version of the 'Inclusion of Other in the Self' scale to estimate relationship closeness

The study of relationship closeness has a long history in psychology and is currently expanding across the social sciences, including economics. Estimating relationship closeness requires appropriate tools. Here, we introduce and test a tool for estimating relationship closeness: 'IOS11'. The IOS11 scale has an 11-point response scale and is a refinement of the widely used Inclusion-of-Other-in-the-Self scale. Our tool has three key features. First, the IOS11 scale is easy to understand and administer. Second, we provide a portable, interactive interface for the IOS11 scale, which can be used in lab and online studies. Third, and crucially, based on within-participant correlations of 751 individuals, we demonstrate strong validity of the IOS11 scale in terms of representing features of relationships captured by a range of more complex survey instruments. Based on these correlations we find that the IOS11 scale outperforms the IOS scale and performs as well as the related Oneness scale.

Political orientation, trust and discriminatory beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world in many ways; for example, evidence from the United Kingdom indicates that higher rates of discriminatory behaviours against immigrants have been recorded during this period. Prior research suggests that political orientation and trust are instrumental in discriminatory beliefs against immigrants. A longitudinal study (six waves and a follow-up) was conducted in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020-August 2021) using convenience sampling (N = 383). The hypotheses enquired about whether political orientation predicts trust in government, trust in science and discriminatory beliefs. Multilevel regression and mediation analyses were conducted, using repeated measures nested within individuals. It was found that conservative views are associated with higher discriminatory beliefs, lower trust in science and higher trust in government. Furthermore, trust in science promotes reduction of discrimination, whereas trust in government, increases discriminatory beliefs. However, a nuance revealed by an interaction effect, shows that a positive alignment between political and scientific authorities may be required to reduce prejudice against immigrants. Exploratory multilevel mediation showed that trust is a mediator between political orientation and discriminatory beliefs.

Animalistic slurs increase harm by changing perceptions of social desirability

In propaganda and hate speech, target groups are often compared to dangerous and disgusting animals. Exposure to these animalistic slurs is thought to increase endorsement of intergroup harm but the mechanism by which this happens remains unclear. Across two pre-registered and highly powered studies, we examined how animalistic language influences the cultural transmission of beliefs about target groups. In line with previous work, we found that describing a novel political group with animalistic slurs increased the extent to which participants endorsed harm towards them. Importantly, reading animalistic slurs did not influence the extent to which participants believed the target group possessed uniquely human qualities. Rather, the animalistic slurs influenced endorsement of harm by making the target group appear more undesirable. These findings offer a novel perspective into the nature of dehumanization and new insights into how hate speech functions.

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 polarizing impact of numeracy, economic literacy, and science literacy on the perception of immigration

Immigrants might be perceived as a threat to a country's jobs, security, and cultural identity. In this study, we aimed to test whether individuals with higher numerical, scientific, and economic literacy were more polarized in their perception of immigration, depending on their cultural worldview orientation. We measured these variables in a representative sample of citizens in a medium-sized city in northern Italy. We found evidence that numerical, scientific, and economic literacy polarize concerns about immigration aligning them to people's worldview orientations. Individuals with higher numerical, economic, and scientific literacy were less concerned about immigration if they held an egalitarian-communitarian worldview, while they were more concerned about immigration if they held a hierarchical-individualistic worldview. On the contrary, individuals with less numerical, economic, and scientific literacy did not show a polarized perception of immigration. Results reveal that citizens with higher knowledge and ability presented a more polarized perception of immigration. Conclusions highlight the central role of cultural worldviews over information theories in shaping concerns about immigration.

Gender and ethnicity bias in medicine: a text analysis of 1.8 million critical care records

Gender and ethnicity biases are pervasive across many societal domains including politics, employment, and medicine. Such biases will facilitate inequalities until they are revealed and mitigated at scale. To this end, over 1.8 million caregiver notes (502 million words) from a large US hospital were evaluated with natural language processing techniques in search of gender and ethnicity bias indicators. Consistent with nonlinguistic evidence of bias in medicine, physicians focused more on the emotions of women compared to men and focused more on the scientific and bodily diagnoses of men compared to women. Content patterns were relatively consistent across genders. Physicians also attended to fewer emotions for Black/African and Asian patients compared to White patients, and physicians demonstrated the greatest need to work through diagnoses for Black/African women compared to other patients. Content disparities were clearer across ethnicities, as physicians focused less on the pain of Black/African and Asian patients compared to White patients in their critical care notes. This research provides evidence of gender and ethnicity biases in medicine as communicated by physicians in the field and requires the critical examination of institutions that perpetuate bias in social systems.

Reducing Explicit Blatant Dehumanization by Correcting Exaggerated Meta-Perceptions

If explicitly, blatantly dehumanizing a group of people—overtly characterizing them as less than human—facilitates harming them, then reversing this process is paramount. Addressing dehumanization among American political partisans appears especially crucial, given that it has been linked to their anti-democratic hostility. Perhaps because of its overt nature, partisans recognize—and greatly exaggerate—the extent to which out-partisans explicitly, blatantly dehumanize them. Past research has found that when people perceive they are dehumanized by an outgroup (i.e., meta-dehumanization), they respond with reciprocal dehumanization. Therefore, we reasoned that partisans’ dehumanization could be reduced by correcting their exaggerated meta-dehumanization. Indeed, across three preregistered studies ( N = 4,154), an intervention correcting American partisans’ exaggerated meta-dehumanization reduced their own dehumanization of out-partisans. This decreased dehumanization persisted at a 1-week follow-up and predicted downstream reductions in partisans’ anti-democratic hostility, suggesting that correcting exaggerated meta-dehumanization can durably mitigate the dark specter of dehumanization.

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.

Reduced helping intentions are better explained by the attribution of antisocial emotions than by 'infrahumanization'

We challenge the explanatory value of one of the most prominent psychological models of dehumanization—infrahumanization theory—which holds that outgroup members are subtly dehumanized by being denied human emotions. Of central importance to this theory is the claim that, to the extent that other people are ‘infrahumanized’, they are less likely to be helped. We examine this hypothesised relationship across four pre-registered and well powered studies. We do not find that attributing all uniquely human emotions to others is positively associated with helping intentions towards them. Instead, we find that attributing prosocial emotions is positively associated with helping intentions and attributing antisocial emotions is negatively associated with helping intentions, regardless of emotion humanness. In our data, what previously appeared to be an association between subtle dehumanization and reduced helping is better explained by the tendency to avoid helping others when we view them negatively.

Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges

Despite our many differences, one superordinate category we all belong to is 'humans'. To strip away or overlook others' humanity, then, is to mark them as 'other' and, typically, 'less than'. We review growing evidence revealing how and why we subtly disregard the humanity of those around us. We then highlight new research suggesting that we continue to blatantly dehumanize certain groups, overtly likening them to animals, with important implications for intergroup hostility. We discuss advances in understanding the experience of being dehumanized and novel interventions to mitigate dehumanization, address the conceptual boundaries of dehumanization, and consider recent accounts challenging the importance of dehumanization and its role in intergroup violence. Finally, we present an agenda of outstanding questions to propel dehumanization research forward.

University Social Responsibility: Challenging Systemic Racism in the Aftermath of George Floyd’s Murder

In this paper, we examine university discretionary interpretation of the 2020 social upheaval that emanated from George Floyd’s murder as an element of university social responsibility (USR) policymaking. The paper addresses two research questions: (a) What are university presidents’ implicit and explicit social justice responses to George Floyd’s death and the idealistic protests of 2020? (b) To what degree are principles of social justice embedded in universities’ intellectual roots and social responsibility? Using a sample of university presidents’ public statements in response to George Floyd’s death and the idealistic protests of 2020, we analyze the response and responsibilities of universities in the struggle for a just society. We cross-check mission statements and strategic plans to corroborate universities’ public statements with their institutional philosophies, mission, and action plans relating to discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and systemic racism. We use critical discourse analysis and the Voyant Tool to perform a textual analysis of 62 university presidents’ letters and mission statements. They all denounced the dehumanization and inequitable treatment of Black people. An important implication of our work is the sharp difference in the depth and forthrightness of responses by university presidents across university types. Some presidential letters are forthright in their denouncement of the murder of George Floyd and systemic racism, while others were, at best, vague in their approach. Presidential letters disclose their institutions’ priorities, organizational identities, and social responsibility convictions. Overall, mission statements and strategic plans included addressing systemic racism and inequality. While there is no ordered symmetry between presidential narratives and institutional action, we anticipate social responsibility as a core institutional value. We argue for social justice anti-racist platforms as critical dimensions of USR. We call for university milieus that promote a fair and just society among all stakeholders.

Why we dehumanize illegal immigrants: A US mixed-methods study

Dehumanization is a topic of significant interest for academia and society at large. Empirical studies often have people rate the evolved nature of outgroups and prior work suggests immigrants are common victims of less-than-human treatment. Despite existing work that suggests who dehumanizes particular outgroups and who is often dehumanized, the extant literature knows less about why people dehumanize outgroups such as immigrants. The current work takes up this opportunity by examining why people dehumanize immigrants said to be illegal and how measurement format affects dehumanization ratings. Participants (N = 672) dehumanized such immigrants more if their ratings were made on a slider versus clicking images of hominids, an effect most pronounced for Republicans. Dehumanization was negatively associated with warmth toward illegal immigrants and the perceived unhappiness felt by illegal immigrants from U.S. immigration policies. Finally, most dehumanization is not entirely blatant but instead, captured by virtuous violence and affect as well, suggesting the many ways that dehumanization can manifest as predicted by theory. This work offers a mechanistic account for why people dehumanize immigrants and addresses how survey measurement artifacts (e.g., clicking on images of hominids vs. using a slider) affect dehumanization rates. We discuss how these data extend dehumanization theory and inform empirical research.

Less than human: dehumanisation of people who use heroin

Purpose

Stigma reduction is an important public health challenge because of the large morbidity and mortality associated with some forms of substance use. Extreme stigma can lead to dehumanisation of target groups, who are ascribed with lesser humanity. The authors examined whether there was blatant and subtle dehumanisation of people who use heroin, and if these were associated with levels of support for non-discriminatory drug policy.

Design/methodology/approach

A cross-sectional online study using a UK convenience sample (n = 307 [75.2% female, mean age 28.6 ± 12.2 years]) was conducted. Participants completed assessments of blatant (Ascent of Humans [AoH] scale) and subtle (an emotion attribution task) dehumanisation and a bespoke measure assessing support for non-discriminatory drug policies. Other measures controlled for stigma towards people who use drugs (PWUD) and moral disgust.

Findings

There was greater blatant dehumanisation of people who used heroin compared to the general population and other potentially stigmatised reference groups, including people who use cannabis. The authors also found evidence of subtle dehumanisation, and people who used heroin were rated as being less likely to feel uniquely human emotions, less likely to feel positive emotions and more likely to feel negative emotions. Blatant dehumanisation was associated with significantly lower probability of support for non-discriminatory drug policy.

Social implications

Dehumanisation may present significant challenges for stigma reduction initiatives and in fostering public support for drug policy and treatment. Denial of the humanity of this group could be used to justify discriminatory policies or relative deprioritisation of support services in funding decisions. Activities that seek to “rehumanise” PWUD, including social inclusion, and encouraging compassionate media representations that portray the lived experiences of substance use may be useful areas of future work.

Originality/value

This is the first study to investigate blatant and subtle dehumanisation of people who use heroin, and how this relates to public support for drug policy.

Proximity with limited humanity: How hosting a tent city impacted college students' perceptions of individuals experiencing homelessness

The current manuscript assessed the impact of a community intervention-hosting a government-sanctioned homeless encampment-on perceptions of individuals experiencing homelessness. College students' perceptions of individuals experiencing homelessness were collected before and after a tent city resided on campus. Perceptions were assessed utilizing a measure of dehumanization that probed the presumed importance of physiological and psychological needs. Data about contact with individuals experiencing homelessness were also collected. Hosting a tent city did not improve community-wide perceptions of individuals experiencing homelessness. For a subset of participants who explicitly mentioned interactions with tent city members, awareness of the importance of physiological needs increased. Assessments of intergroup contact during hosting did not moderate changes in perceptions, though contact prior to hosting did have a modest impact. Specifically, students who had the fewest prior interactions were more likely to show improved perceptions of middle-level need (e.g., love and belonging) importance. There was no evidence to suggest any enhancements in perceptions of high-level needs (e.g., feeling independent and respected). Contact that organically occurs when a community hosts a tent city has limited potential to enhance markers of humanness. Implications for the contact hypothesis and recommendations for future hosting sites are discussed.

Language patterns of outgroup prejudice

Although explicit verbal expression of prejudice and stereotypes may have become less common due to the recent rise of social norms against prejudice, prejudice in language still persists in more subtle forms. It remains unclear whether and how language patterns predict variance in prejudice across a large number of minority groups. Informed by construal level theory, intergroup-contact theory, and linguistic expectancy bias, we leverage a natural language corpus of 1.8 million newspaper articles to investigate patterns of language referencing 60 U.S. minority groups. We found that perception of social distance among immigrant groups is reflected in language production: Groups perceived as socially distant (vs. close) are also more likely to be mentioned in abstract (vs. concrete) language. Concreteness was also strongly positively correlated with sentiment, a phenomenon that was unique to language concerning minority groups, suggesting a strong tendency for more socially distant groups to be represented with more negative language. We also provide a qualitative exploration of the content of outgroup prejudice by applying Latent Dirichlet Allocation to language referencing minority groups in the context of immigration. We identified 15 immigrant-related topics (e.g., politics, arts, crime, illegal workers, museums, food) and the strength of their association and relationship with perceived sentiment for each minority group. This research demonstrates how perceived social distance and language concreteness are related and correlate with outgroup negativity, provides a practical and ecologically valid method for investigating perceptions of minority groups in language, and helps elaborate the connection between theoretical positions from social psychology with recent studies from computer science on prejudice embedded in natural language.

No convincing evidence outgroups are denied uniquely human characteristics: Distinguishing intergroup preference from trait-based dehumanization

According to the dual model, outgroup members can be dehumanized by being thought to possess uniquely and characteristically human traits to a lesser extent than ingroup members. However, previous research on this topic has tended to investigate the attribution of human traits that are socially desirable in nature such as warmth, civility and rationality. As a result, it has not yet been possible to determine whether this form of dehumanization is distinct from intergroup preference and stereotyping. We first establish that participants associate undesirable (e.g., corrupt, jealous) as well as desirable (e.g., open-minded, generous) traits with humans. We then go on to show that participants tend to attribute desirable human traits more strongly to ingroup members but undesirable human traits more strongly to outgroup members. This pattern holds across three different intergroup contexts for which dehumanization effects have previously been reported: political opponents, immigrants and criminals. Taken together, these studies cast doubt on the claim that a trait-based account of representing others as ‘less human’ holds value in the study of intergroup bias.

•

The dual model predicts outgroups are attributed human traits to a lesser extent.

•

To date, predominantly desirable traits have been investigated, creating a confound.

•

We test attributions of desirable and undesirable human traits to social groups.

•

Attributions of undesirable human traits were stronger for outgroups than ingroups.

•

We find no support for the predictions of the dual model of dehumanization.

Dehumanization During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Communities often unite during a crisis, though some cope by ascribing blame or stigmas to those who might be linked to distressing life events. In a preregistered two-wave survey, we evaluated the dehumanization of Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first wave (March 26–April 2, 2020; N = 917) revealed dehumanization was prevalent, between 6.1% and 39% of our sample depending on measurement. Compared to non-dehumanizers, people who dehumanized also perceived the virus as less risky to human health and caused less severe consequences for infected people. They were more likely to be ideologically Conservative and believe in conspiracy theories about the virus. We largely replicated the results 1 month later in our second wave (May 6–May 13, 2020; N = 723). Together, many Americans dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic with related perceptions that the virus is less problematic. Implications and applications for dehumanization theory are discussed.

Political partisanship and mobility restriction during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are effective in curbing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. All US states have adopted NPI policies, but the compliance to these measures and influence of sociopolitical factors on NPI adherence is unknown. NPI adherence may be approximated by personal mobility in a population that is tracked by anonymous mobile phone data.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study of state-level mobility changes across the US.

METHODS

State-level mobility was based on anonymous mobile phone data from multiple participating carriers collected by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (http://www.healthdata.org). Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between political affiliations and mobility restriction across states. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess other factors that may impact personal travel.

RESULTS

All states experienced a decline in personal mobility but had varying nadirs ranging from a 34% to a 69% reduction in mobility, which was not temporally related to the timing of state-level NPI measures. There was a statistically significant linear and negative correlation (r = -0.79) between the proportion of Republicans/leaning Republicans and NPI adherence across US states. The negative association between Republicans and NPI adherence was significant even when adjusting for urbanization, proportion of essential workers, population, Gini index, and poverty rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Political orientation affects risk perception, which may contribute to the unwillingness of some individuals to perceive the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as a risk and to comply with NPIs. Our results highlight the importance of sociopolitical factors in disease control and emphasize the importance of bipartisan efforts in fighting the pandemic. These results may have implications for the development, dissemination, and communication of public health policies.