Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio‐economic status and attribution of humanity

Abstract

Differences between groups in socio-economic status (SES) are becoming more salient nowadays. In this context, we examined the animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization that both low and high-SES groups may experience respectively by conducting three studies. In study 1, we manipulated the SES of two fictitious groups (low vs. high-SES) and measured the humanity ascribed to them. Results showed that the low-SES group was animalized in comparison with the high-SES group, which was mechanized. In study 2, we manipulated the humanity of two fictitious groups by describing them as animals or machines and measured the perceived SES of the groups. Participants tended to attribute lower SES to the group described as animals and higher SES to the group described as machines. Finally, in study 3, we used an Implicit Association Test to replicate the results of studies 1 and 2. Taken together, these studies show that low-SES groups are considered as animal-like whereas high-SES groups are seen as robot-like. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to the justification of income inequality within our society.

We share the Euro, but not our humanity: Humanity attributions are associated with the perceived causes, consequences, and solution to the Greek financial crisis

“…First, regarding outgroup (de)humanization: We expected that Greece-one of the EU's less economically stable countries, popularly described in the press with the derogatory acronym PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Greece; BBC News, 2010)-would be viewed by the Germans as lacking HU. Specifically, in line with previous studies about poor groups (Loughnan et al, 2014;Sainz et al, 2018), we expected that the Greeks would be considered by Germans to be lacking HU compared to HN (Hypothesis 1). We further expected that Germans would be viewed by the Greeks as lacking HN while having high levels of HU instead (H2), in line with Martínez, Rodríguez-Bailón, and Moya (2012).…”

“…Although previous authors have suggested that dehumanization might trigger economic conflicts (Kraus, Park, & Tan, 2017), dehumanization has been predominantly studied in the context of intergroup violence (e.g., Bandura, 1999). This neglect is important because dehumanization has been shown to justify intra-national economic differences (e.g., Sainz et al, 2018). In the present study, we examined this effect between nations, exploring whether dehumanization between Greeks and Germans plays a role in their economic conflict.…”

“…The denial of these characteristics leads to viewing the group as closer to animals than to human beings (i.e., animalistic dehumanization). This form of dehumanization has usually been applied to low-status (Capozza, Andrighetto, Di Berdano, & Falvo, 2011; Iatridis, 2013) or poor groups (Loughnan, Haslam, Sutton, & Spencer, 2014;Sainz, Martínez, RUNNING HEAD: WE SHARE THE EURO, BUT NOT OUR HUMANITY 2 Moya, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2018). Additionally, animalizing disadvantaged groups might trigger a justification of inequality by considering that these groups are placed where they deserve .…”

Less human, more to blame: Animalizing poor people increases blame and decreases support for wealth redistribution

“…More recent research has begun to examine the relation between dehumanization and social class. This research revealed that a widespread tendency exists to consider low-SES people to be animal-like (Sainz et al, 2018) and thus to deny them HU traits. For example, Loughnan et al (2014) showed that low-SES groups, such as those called “chavs” in the UK and “White trash” in the US, were regarded as less uniquely human and more animal-like.…”

“…The main objective of the present work is to analyze some ways in which people resist redistribution policies. Specifically, we focus on how dehumanization of low-SES groups (Loughnan, Haslam, Sutton, & Spencer, 2014; Sainz, Martínez, Moya, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2018) may influence the rejection of wealth redistribution policies through causal internal attributions of poverty (Bullock, Williams, & Limbert, 2003).…”