Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing.

Abstract

The present research examines how awareness of violence perpetrated against an out-group by one's in-group can intensify the infrahumanization of the out-group, as measured by a reduced tendency to accord uniquely human emotions to out-groups. Across 3 experiments that used different in-groups (humans, British, White Americans) and out-groups (aliens, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans), when participants were made aware of the in-group's mass killing of the out-group, they infrahumanized the victims more. The perception of collective responsibility, not just the knowledge that the out-group members had died in great numbers, was shown to be necessary for this effect. Infrahumanization also occurred concurrently with increased collective guilt but was unrelated to it. It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group.

From infra-humanization to discrimination: The mediation of symbolic threat needs egalitarian norms

“…These results are in accordance with several lines of thinking (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) and research (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). To the same extent that people may infra-humanize a group that they have previously attacked in order to prevent guilt (Zebel et al, 2008; see also Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006), they may attack the group because, supposedly, this group represents a threat that justifies the attack.…”

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

“…Many researchers (e.g., Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006;Viki et al, 2006) took the measure including positive and negative secondary emotions as evidence that the concept went beyond ingroup humanisation, and included the dehumanisation of the outgroup. These two biases often work together, but they do not have to (Brewer, 1999).…”

The animal in you: Animalistic descriptions of a violent crime increase punishment of perpetrator

“…People tend to withdraw from the dehumanized (Vaes, Paladino, Castelli, Leyens, & Giovanazzi, 2006) and want to limit their immigration (Hodson & Costello, 2007). People also tend to offer less assistance to the dehumanized (Cuddy, Rock, & Norton, 2007;Vaes, et al, 2006) and express less concern when they are mistreated (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006;Cehajic, Brown, & Gonzalez, 2009;Goff, et al, 2008).…”