Seven Clarifications on the Psychology of Dehumanization

Attribution of undesirable character traits, rather than trait-based dehumanization, predicts punishment decisions

Previous work has reported that the extent to which participants dehumanized criminals by denying them uniquely human character traits such as refinement, rationality and morality predicted the severity of the punishment endorsed for them. We revisit this influential finding across six highly powered and pre-registered studies. First, we conceptually replicate the effect reported in previous work, demonstrating that our method is sensitive to detecting relationships between trait-based dehumanization and punishment should they occur. We then investigate whether the apparent relationship between trait-based dehumanization and punishment is driven by the desirability of the traits incorporated into the stimulus set, their perceived humanness, or both. To do this, we asked participants to rate the extent to which criminals possessed uniquely human traits that were either socially desirable (e.g. cultured and civilized) or socially undesirable (e.g. arrogant and bitter). Correlational and experimental evidence converge on the conclusion that apparent evidence for the relationship between trait-based dehumanization and punishment is better explained by the extent to which participants attribute socially desirable attributes to criminals rather than the extent to which they attribute uniquely human attributes. These studies cast doubt on the hypothesized causal relationship between trait-based dehumanization and harm, at least in this context.

Martin Buber: guide for a psychology of suffering

Martin Buber was untrained in psychology, yet his teaching provides helpful guidance for a psychological science of suffering. His ideas deserve attention at three distinct levels. For each of these, his ideas align with research findings, but also push beyond them. At the individual level, Buber's radical approach to relationships disrupts typical social cognitive cycles of suffering and can thereby build a defense against suffering. At the community level, he provides guidance that can help create a society that cares for people who suffer. At the dyadic level, Buber's guidance also matters. His ideas point toward a therapeutic dyad that can help address suffering when the individual and community responses are not sufficient. Specifically, he guides us toward a holistic view of the person that transcends labels and also toward ineffable human relations. Here again, his ideas align with empirical research, but push beyond. Buber's unique take on relationships has much to offer scholars seeking to understand and alleviate suffering. Some might perceive Buber as ignoring evil. That possible criticism and others deserve consideration. Nonetheless, readiness to adjust theory in response to Buber and other psychological outsiders may be valuable when developing a psychology of suffering.

Dehumanization as a Response to Uncivil and Immoral Behaviors

Theoretical approaches to dehumanization consider civility to be an attribute of human uniqueness (HU). However, studies that explore the links between civility and humanness are scarce. More precisely, the present research tests whether there is a consistent relationship between civility and HU. Method and results: The first study (N = 192; Mage = 19.91; SD = 2.70; 69% women) shows that individuals infer more HU traits in the agents of civil behaviors compared to agents of other positive behaviors that are not related to civility. The second study (N = 328; Mage = 19.69; SD = 3.65; 77% women) reveals that uncivil and immoral behaviors displayed a similar pattern of inference of HU traits; however, moral behaviors were more associated with human nature than civil behaviors. Conclusions: Overall, results confirmed that civil behaviors facilitate the inference of humanness, specifically of HU traits, and that civil and moral behaviors are not equivalent in terms of the human inferences to which they lead.

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.