Falsifying the Dehumanization Hypothesis

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.

Only human after all? a pre-registered study on gaze behavior and humanity attributions to people with facial difference

There is a great deal of indirect evidence suggesting that people with facial difference (FD) may be dehumanized. This research aimed to provide direct evidence of the dehumanization of people with FD based on the stigmatizing reactions they elicit. More precisely, previous findings revealed that the specific way people with FD are looked upon is related to the feelings of disgust they elicit. Since disgust fosters dehumanization, our aim was to confirm the modified pattern of visual attention towards people with FD and to determine whether it was also related to humanness perception. For that purpose, a preregistered eye-tracking study (N = 97) using a former experimental design extended to humanity attributions was conducted. This research replicates findings showing that the face of people with FD is explored differently in comparison with other human faces. However, the hypothesis that people with FD were given fewer humanity attributions was not supported. Therefore, the hypothesis of a "dehumanizing gaze" towards people with FD-beyond humanity-related attributions-is discussed in light of these findings.

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.

Intergroup preference, not dehumanization, explains social biases in emotion attribution

Psychological models can only help improve intergroup relations if they accurately characterise the mechanisms underlying social biases. The claim that outgroups suffer dehumanization is near ubiquitous in the social sciences. We challenge the most prominent psychological model of dehumanization - infrahumanization theory - which holds outgroup members are subtly dehumanized by being denied human emotions. We examine the theory across seven intergroup contexts in thirteen pre-registered and highly powered experiments (N = 1690). We find outgroup members are not denied uniquely human emotions relative to ingroup members. Rather, they are ascribed prosocial emotions to a lesser extent but antisocial emotions to a greater extent. Apparent evidence for infrahumanization is better explained by ingroup preference, outgroup derogation and stereotyping. Infrahumanization theory may obscure more than it reveals about intergroup bias.

•

Infrahumanization theory predicts outgroups are often denied uniquely human emotions.

•

However, to date, antisocial uniquely human emotions have not been investigated.

•

We test attributions of prosocial and antisocial emotions to social groups.

•

Attributions of antisocial human emotions were stronger for outgroups than ingroups.

•

We find no support for the predictions of infrahumanization theory.

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.