Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups : distinct forms of subtle dehumanization

Research on subtle dehumanization has focused on the attribution of human uniqueness to groups (infrahumanization), but has not examined another sense of humanness, human nature. Additionally, research has not extended far beyond Western cultures to examine the universality of these forms of dehumanization. Hence, the attribution of both forms of humanness was examined in three cross-cultural studies. Anglo-Australian and ethnic Chinese attributed values and traits (Study 1, N = 200) and emotions (Study 2, N = 151) to Australian and Chinese groups, and rated these characteristics on human uniqueness and human nature. Both studies found evidence of complementary attributions of humanness for Australians, who denied Chinese human nature but attributed them with greater human uniqueness. Chinese denied Australians human uniqueness, but their attributions of human nature varied for traits, values, and emotions. Study 3 (N = 54) demonstrated similar forms of dehumanization using an implicit method. These results and their implications for dehumanization and prejudice suggest the need to broaden investigation and theory to encompass both forms of humanness, and examine the attribution of both lesser and greater humanness to outgroups.

Humanness and Dehumanization

What does it mean to be human? Why do people dehumanize others (and sometimes themselves)? These questions have only recently begun to be investigated in earnest within psychology. This volume presents the latest thinking about these and related questions from research leaders in the field of humanness and dehumanization in social psychology and related disciplines. Contributions provide new insights into the history of dehumanization, its different types, and new theories are proposed for when and why dehumanization occurs. While people’s views about what humanness is, and who has it, have long been known as important in understanding ethnic conflict, contributors demonstrate its relevance in other domains, including medical practice, policing, gender relations, and our relationship with the natural environment. Cultural differences and similarities in beliefs about humanness are explored, along with strategies to overcome dehumanization. In highlighting emerging ideas and theoretical perspectives, describing current theoretical issues and controversies and ways to resolve them, and in extending research to new areas, this volume will influence research on humanness and dehumanization for many years.

When sex doesn't sell: Using sexualized images of women reduces support for ethical campaigns

Images of scantily clad women are used by advertisers to make products more attractive to men. This ‘‘sex sells’’ approach is increasingly employed to promote ethical causes, most prominently by the animal-rights organization PETA. Yet sexualized images can dehumanize women, leaving an unresolved paradox – is it effective to advertise an ethical cause using unethical means? In Study 1, a sample of Australian male undergraduates (N = 82) viewed PETA advertisements containing either sexualized or non-sexualized images of women. Intentions to support the ethical organization were reduced for those exposed to the sexualized advertising, and this was explained by their dehumanization of the sexualized women, and not by increased arousal. Study 2 used a mixed-gender community sample from the United States (N = 280), replicating this finding and extending it by showing that behaviors helpful to the ethical cause diminished after viewing the sexualized advertisements, which was again mediated by the dehumanization of the women depicted. Alternative explanations relating to the reduced credibility of the sexualized women and their objectification were not supported. When promoting ethical causes, organizations may benefit from using advertising strategies that do not dehumanize women.

Humanizing the self: Moderators of the attribution of lesser humanness to others

Three studies investigated moderators of the tendency to attribute greater humanness to the self than to others, an interpersonal counterpart of outgroup infra-humanization. Study 1 demonstrated that this self-humanizing effect is reduced when the other is the focus of comparison. Study 2 showed that the effect is reduced when the other is individuated. Study 3 indicated that empathy does not moderate self-humanizing: Self-humanizing failed to correlate negatively with dispositional empathy or perspective-taking. Study 3 also indicated that abstract construal moderates the self-humanizing effect using a temporal comparison. Participants rated their future self, but not their past self, as less human than their present self. Studies 1 and 3 also showed that selfhumanizing is greater for undesirable traits: People may view their failings as “only human.” All findings were distinct from those attributable to self-enhancement. Self-humanizing may reflect a combination of egocentrism, focalism, abstract representation of others, and motivated processes.

Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men

We examined whether homophobic epithets (e.g., faggot) function as labels of deviance for homosexuals that contribute to their dehumanization and physical distance. Across two studies, participants were supraliminally (Study 1) and subliminally (Study 2) exposed to a homophobic epithet, a category label, or a generic insult. Participants were then asked to associate human related and animal-related words to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Results showed that after exposure to a homophobic epithet, compared with a category label or a generic insult, participants associated less human-related words with homosexuals, indicating dehumanization. In Study 2, we also assessed the effect of a homophobic epithet on physical distance from a target group member and found that homophobic epithets led to greater physical distancing of a gay man. These findings indicate that homophobic epithets foster dehumanization and avoidance of gay people, in ways that other insults or labels do not.