Dehumanization: An Integrative Review

Haslam, Nick

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

Cited by 2,125 publications

(2,591 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,415

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the present research contributes to literatures assessing the cognition-emotion distinction in terms of mind perception (Gray et al, 2007), social perception (Fiske et al, 2002), and conceptualizations of humanness (Haslam, 2006). Although existing research demonstrates that people indeed judge nonhuman entities such as robots, animals, and supernatural beings using these dimensions (Gray et al, 2007), the implications of the cognition-emotion distinction for prospective interaction with such nonhuman entities are less well explored.…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs.

Waytz

Norton²

2014

Emotion

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological innovations have produced robots capable of jobs that, until recently, only humans could perform. The present research explores the psychology of "botsourcing"-the replacement of human jobs by robots-while examining how understanding botsourcing can inform the psychology of outsourcing-the replacement of jobs in one country by humans from other countries. We test four related hypotheses across six experiments: (1) Given people's lay theories about the capacities for cognition and emotion for robots and humans, workers will express more discomfort with botsourcing when they consider losing jobs that require emotion versus cognition; (2) people will express more comfort with botsourcing when jobs are framed as requiring cognition versus emotion; (3) people will express more comfort with botsourcing for jobs that do require emotion if robots appear to convey more emotion; and (4) people prefer to outsource cognition-oriented versus emotion-oriented jobs to other humans who are perceived as more versus less robotic. These results have theoretical implications for understanding social cognition about both humans and nonhumans and practical implications for the increasingly botsourced and outsourced economy.Botsourcing and Outsourcing 3

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs.

Waytz

Norton²

2014

Emotion

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crucially, the mentalizing network only failed to be activated if participants faced extreme outgroups, i.e., people who were both low in competence and low in warmth (e.g., homeless people, drug addicts). The authors interpreted this lack of mentalizing-related activated as an indication that extreme outgroups may not be perceived as fully human, may even be dehumanized by denying characteristics to them that are uniquely human (representing them as animal-like) and those that constitute human nature (representing them as objects or automata) [Allport, 1954;Haslam, 2006]. This lack of activity in areas of the mentalizing network in both studies permits the speculation that the defecting outgroup members of our paradigm are treated similarly to the extreme outgroup members in the study by Harris and colleagues.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The mentalizing network orchestrates the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement

Baumgärtner

Götte

Gugler

et al. 2011

Human Brain Mapping

159

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parochial altruism-a preference for altruistic behavior towards ingroup members and mistrust or hostility towards outgroup members-is a pervasive feature in human society and strongly shapes the enforcement of social norms. Since the uniqueness of human society critically depends on the enforcement of norms, the understanding of the neural circuitry of the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement is key, but unexplored. To fill this gap, we measured brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while subjects had the opportunity to punish ingroup members and outgroup members for violating social norms. Findings revealed that subjects' strong punishment of defecting outgroup members is associated with increased activity in a functionally connected network involved in sanction-related decisions (right orbitofrontal gyrus, right lateral prefrontal cortex, right dorsal caudatus). Moreover, the stronger the connectivity in this network, the more outgroup members are punished. In contrast, the much weaker punishment of ingroup members who committed the very same norm violation is associated with increased activity and connectivity in the mentalizing-network (dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, bilateral temporo-parietal junction), as if subjects tried to understand or justify ingroup members' behavior. Finally, connectivity analyses between the two networks suggest that the mentalizing-network modulates punishment by affecting the activity in the right orbitofrontal gyrus and right lateral prefrontal cortex, notably in the same areas showing enhanced activity and connectivity whenever third-parties strongly punished defecting outgroup members.

show abstract

“…Perceiving others as faceless or fungible entities has been identified as an aspect of objectified (Nussbaum, 1999) or dehumanized perception (Haslam, 2006). In other words, faceless or fungible opponents are likely to be perceived as objects rather than unique human beings.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, faceless or fungible opponents are likely to be perceived as objects rather than unique human beings. When people perceive others in an objectified or dehumanized way, they are more prone to deny that they are worthy of moral concern (Haslam, 2006). Violence enacted against such faceless individuals may be more easily perceived as justified.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

Hartmann¹,

Toz²,

Brandon³

2010

Media Psychology

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many avid gamers discount violent conduct in video games as morally insignificant as "it is just a game". However, recent debates among users, regarding video games featuring inappropriate forms of virtual violence, suggest a more complex truth. Two experiments (N 1 = 49, N 2 = 80) examined users' guilt responses in order to explore the moral significance of virtual violence. In both studies, justification of virtual violence and users' trait empathy determined guilt in a structurally similar way to real-world scenarios: people felt guiltier if they engaged in unjustified virtual violence, especially if they were empathetic players. These results show that video games are capable of inducing affective moral responses in users. Accordingly, virtual violence may be considered morally significant action.Keywords: violence, video games, guilt, empathy, justification, morality (Bartle, 2008).Virtual violence may be defined as any behavior intended to do harm to another video game character, who is motivated to avoid the harm-doing (Anderson et al., 2008;Baron & Richardson, 1994). Shooting virtual characters for example, in first-person shooter video games, provides a typical example of virtual violence. While many studies have shown that virtual violence depicted in video games increases aggression in users (Anderson et al., 2010), surprisingly little is known about how users perceive and experience virtual violence themselves (e.g., Scharrer & Leone, 2006, Young & Whitty, 2010.Violent video games are designed for entertainment purposes. Consequently, regular violent game players do not typically feel as though they are doing something wrong when they shoot virtual characters. A frequent argument put forward by avid gamers is that they are well aware that the violence depicted in video games "is not real" (Ladas, 2002). For example, Klimmt, Schmid, Nosper, Vorderer, and Hartmann (2006, see also Whitty, Young, & Goodings, in press) asked avid gamers how they experience virtual violence personally. The majority of players replied that they enjoyed virtual violence as they believe that shooting virtual characters is "just a game" (comparable to chess) and has "nothing to do with killing". This suggests that players maintain a psychologically detached and unaffected stance when playing violent games and that virtual violence is too artificial to be considered morally significant and thus trigger any moral response in the user.RUNNING HEAD: Virtual Violence and Guilt 2 However, Klimmt et al.'s (2006) study suggests that users may also perceive and judge virtual violence in a moral way. In their study, a number of players indicated that they would find it disturbing if they accidentally shot a child, for example, or if painful injuries were depicted in the video game. Related discussion of "inappropriate" virtual violence also exists in the video game community. Many video game-related online blogs and forums recently featured heated debate regarding a mission included in the popular online-role-playing game "...

show abstract

Dehumanization: An Integrative Review

Cited by 2,125 publications

References 59 publications

Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs.

Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs.

The mentalizing network orchestrates the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement

Just a Game? Unjustified Virtual Violence Produces Guilt in Empathetic Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About