Dehumanization amidst massacres: An examination of Dinka-Nuer intergroup attitudes in South Sudan.

Calissendorff, Love; Brosché, Johan; Sundberg, Ralph

doi:10.1037/pac0000352

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Certain features of social systems have been identified as relevant to psychological conditions during conflict situations. Changes in the manner, intensity, and use of dehumanization metaphors stand contingent to context, shaped by characteristics of ingroup and outgroup, power relations, culture (Haslam, Loughnan, & Sun, 2011; Leyens et al, 2007), and contexts of violence, whether episodic (Cameron, Maslen, & Todd, 2013) or protracted (Calissendorff, Brosché, & Sundberg, 2019).…”

Section: Studying the Trust–humanization Link: An Epistemological Mod...mentioning

confidence: 99%

(De)humanization and trust in an asymmetric Muslim–Christian conflict: Heroes, Kafirs, and Satanas.

Montiel¹,

Paz²,

Cerafica³

2019

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is there any empirical relation between intergroup (de)humanization and trust during asymmetric conflicts? We address this question using as a case in point a Muslim-Christian heated clash in southern Philippines. Our data corpus consists of newspaper articles and Facebook public posts. Text-mining analytical strategies include detecting the word trust and its derivatives, employing text-based principal component analysis to portray culture-embedded meanings of dehumanization, and running trust-humanization correlations. Our results suggest that an identical set of conflict utterances evokes a greater sense of dehumanization from the low-power group, while the highpower group remains relatively unperturbed. Further, the language of dehumanization occurs through negative religious images like the word kafir or unbeliever for Christians, while Muslims are dehumanized through the use of words like Satanas (Satan) and demonyo (demon). Finally, high trust toward one's ingroup goes hand-in-hand with dehumanizing the enemy. Our research extends the study of trust and humanization beyond theoretical discussions and laboratory experiments. We see how psychological phenomena operate in actual conflict settings that are markedly unequal and religiously fueled. Public Significance StatementDuring peace talks, the words used in political conversations may be interpreted in predictably different ways by two parties that sit at the negotiating table. The low power group may tend to sense more dehumanization where a dominant group does not see any. Further, dehumanization during religiously-colored conflicts comes in the form of hurling religious insults across the divide such as satanas/demonyo (satan/devil) and kafir (unbeliever). When these terms are deployed, the enemy is portrayed as less than human and deserving of inhumane treatment.

show abstract

Section: Studying the Trust–humanization Link: An Epistemological Mod...mentioning

confidence: 99%

(De)humanization and trust in an asymmetric Muslim–Christian conflict: Heroes, Kafirs, and Satanas.

Montiel¹,

Paz²,

Cerafica³

2019

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Bandura also notes, moral disengagement can occur through the dehumanization of potential victims (Bandura, 2002). We can find vivid examples of this throughout history, where the victims were first dehumanized by being labelled as non-human before wide-scale violence took place (Harris et al, 2011;Livingstone Smith, 2011;Neilsen, 2015;Mukasonga, 2016;Bruneau et al, 2017;Rai et al, 2017;Bastian, 2019;Calissendorff et al, 2019).…”

Section: Online Avatarmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Avatar Effect: The harmful consequences of decision-making through a 'separate' entity.

Macdonald¹

2020

OSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we are in the midst of a global crisis, caused primarily by human activity, it is vital to ask, what leads us to make such ethically compromised decisions? This paper reveals a phenomenon that may cause an individual to loosen or lose their moral compass: the avatar effect. The case is made that there are frequent situations where individuals can make decisions through—what appears to them as—a separate entity, and that through compounding underlying mechanisms, this can result in an increased sense of disconnection, compromised judgement, and harmful consequences.

show abstract

“…Along with the aforementioned Nazi and Rwandan genocides, other dehumanized victims of 20th-century mass violence include the Armenians in Turkey (Savage, 2009; Suny, 2017), opponents of Soviet collectivization (Snyder, 2011), Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking (Smith, 2011), and ethnic Vietnamese during the Cambodian genocide (Goldhagen, 2009; Staub, 1989). Contemporary conflicts in Darfur and Israel have also been inflamed by dehumanization (Bruneau & Kteily, 2017; Calissendorff et al, 2019; Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2008; Smith, 2011). Indeed, dehumanization of the victim group may be a prerequisite for mass violence and genocide (Kelman, 1973; Savage, 2009, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hated but still human: Metadehumanization leads to greater hostility than metaprejudice

Landry

Ihm

Schooler

2021

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metadehumanization, the perception that members of an outgroup dehumanize your group, has been found to exacerbate intergroup conflict by inspiring reciprocal dehumanization of the offending outgroup. Moreover, metadehumanization is distinct from metaprejudice (i.e., the perception that an outgroup hates your group). Given the mutual animosity reported in public opinion polls toward the other side, we believed US–Russia relations would be a worthwhile context in which to extend this model. Therefore, we measured Americans’ levels of metadehumanization and metaprejudice of Russians to determine the association between these perceptions and their hostility toward Russians (Study 1). In this novel intergroup conflict, metadehumanization remained a consequential predictor of outgroup hostility over and above metaprejudice, suggesting that it can exacerbate a broader range of intergroup conflicts than those heretofore examined. Given these findings, we then sought to experimentally differentiate between metadehumanization and metaprejudice. In Study 2, we manipulated both metadehumanization and metaprejudice to (a) determine whether one or both cause greater outgroup hostility and (b) elucidate the underlying mechanisms by which they may produce this effect. Whereas metadehumanization produced greater hostility, metaprejudice did not. Moreover, although both metaperceptions inspired greater prejudice, only metadehumanization led to greater dehumanization. We conclude that metadehumanization may be a particularly potent fomenter of hostility because it inspires reciprocal dehumanization over and above more general negative bias.

show abstract

Dehumanization amidst massacres: An examination of Dinka-Nuer intergroup attitudes in South Sudan.

Abstract: Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Cited by 6 publications

References 35 publications

(De)humanization and trust in an asymmetric Muslim–Christian conflict: Heroes, Kafirs, and Satanas.

(De)humanization and trust in an asymmetric Muslim–Christian conflict: Heroes, Kafirs, and Satanas.

The Avatar Effect: The harmful consequences of decision-making through a 'separate' entity.

Hated but still human: Metadehumanization leads to greater hostility than metaprejudice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About