The Attribution of Primary and Secondary Emotions to the In-Group and to the Out-Group: The Case of Equal Status Countries

Dehumanization and Minimization of Informal Caregivers Suffering: The Legitimizing Role of Justice Perceptions

Informal caregivers, who provide unpaid care work to individuals with disabilities, are devalued despite their important contributions to society. Identifying the factors contributing to their devaluation is crucial for recognizing and valuing their work. In two experimental studies, we examined (a) whether informal caregivers are dehumanized; (b) the moderating impact of belief in a just world (BJW) on this process; and (c) the predictive impact of BJW and the dehumanization of informal caregivers on the perception of informal caregivers' suffering. In Study 1 (N = 180), a 2 (informal caregiver vs. non-caregiver) X 2 (female vs. male) between-participants design was used; in Study 2 (N = 205), there were two experimental conditions: female informal caregiver vs. male informal caregiver. Participants were randomly assigned to one description of a target and were asked to complete measures assessing the dehumanization of the target (Studies 1 and 2), the perception of the suffering of the target (Study 2), and a measure of BJW referring to themselves (Study 2). Results showed the expected dehumanization effect, such that participants attributed fewer uniquely human emotions to informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers, regardless of their gender (Studies 1 and 2). However, this effect was observed only among participants with higher BJW (Study 2). Furthermore, BJW and the dehumanization of informal caregivers predicted the minimization of the perception of informal caregivers' suffering (Study 2). These results establish a theoretical relationship between these research areas and offer insights for practical implications and future research.

Are they Animals or Machines? Measuring Dehumanization

The present research deals with two forms of dehumanization: 1) denying uniquely human attributes to others (seeing them as animals); 2) denying human nature to others (seeing them as machines or automata). Studies 1 and 2 explored these two forms of dehumanization, analyzing whether people associated their ingroup more with human-related words (vs. animal- vs. machine-related words) than two different outgroups. A paper and pencil procedure was used to find out which words were associated with the surnames of the ingroup (Spaniards) or the outgroup (Germans, Gypsies). Results showed that participants were more ready to link ingroup than outgroup surnames to human words. They also linked more Gypsy surnames to animal-related words and German surnames with machine-related words. Studies 3 and 4 used the Implicit Association Test to analyze the same ideas and replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2.

Occupational status differences in attributions of uniquely human emotions

Infrahumanization theory has claimed that groups tend to infrahumanize, and thus denigrate, each other irrespective of group status. However, research on infrahumanization has mainly addressed status in the context of national, ethnic, and regional divisions. The present studies tested the effect of group status in infrahumanization by employing occupational groups of varied status, both in abstract (blue-collar vs. white-collar workers) and specific terms (lawyers vs. shopkeepers, and high school teachers vs. university faculty members and primary school teachers). The results showed that only relatively higher status groups always attributed uniquely human emotions more to their in-group than to lower status out-groups. In contrast, lower status groups showed no bias in attributions of uniquely human emotions, or were biased in favour of the higher status out-group. The discussion of these results points to the role of consensus in the distribution of social value amongst groups of asymmetric status.