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

Abstract

Criminal acts are sometimes described using animal metaphors. What is the impact of a violent crime being described in an animalistic vs. a non-animalistic way on the subsequent retribution towards the perpetrator? In two studies we experimentally varied animalistic descriptions of a violent crime and examined its effect on the severity of the punishment for the act. In Study 1, we showed that compared to non-animalistic descriptions, animalistic descriptions resulted in significantly harsher punishment for the perpetrator. In Study 2, we replicated this effect and further demonstrated that this harsher sentencing is explained by an increase in perceived risk of recidivism. Our findings suggest that animalistic descriptions of crimes lead to more retaliation against the perpetrator by inducing the perception that he is likely to continue engaging in violence.

Humanness Is Not Always Positive: Automatic Associations between Incivilities and Human Symbols

“…In addition, the study of automatic associations between humanness and incivilities could help to explore the reasons that lead people to justify and exculpate this type of harmful behavior. Several studies support adding dehumanization to models of justice [29,[56][57][58]. Dehumanization accounts for how perceptions of the harmfulness of deviant behavior are translated into a desire for severe forms of punishment; that is to say, the perceived inhumanity of the perpetrators is found to be an important determinant in the judgment of blame and punishment.…”

Perceiving the agency of harmful agents: A test of dehumanization versus moral typecasting accounts

“…A vast literature within psychology supports the idea that harmful agents are targets of often severe condemnation (e.g., Bastian, Denson, & Haslam, 2013;Bastian, Laham, Wilson, Haslam, & Koval, 2011;Carlsmith et al, 2002;Gray, 2014;Gray & Wegner, 2009;Vasquez, Loughnan, Gootjes-Dreesbach, & Weger, 2014). However, much less research has considered the attributions people make with regards to the underlying agency of harmful agents.…”

“…According to work on dehumanization, harmful agents are often seen by others as lacking basic aspects of humanity or "humanness" (Haslam, 2006;Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner, 2008), such as civility and warmth, and at times may even be imbued with animalistic or machine-like traits (Bastian et al, 2013;Vasquez et al, 2014). Thus, currently, there exists a tension in the psychological literature regarding how harmful agents are conceptualized.…”

Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement and Prisoner Abuse

“…Vasiljevic and Viki () proposed that dehumanization leads to the moral exclusion of criminals, ultimately justifying their mistreatment. They explain that persons who have committed criminal acts are often viewed as having “removed themselves from the moral boundaries of society” and “forfeited their right to be members of the community.” And, “[o]nce expelled from the human moral circle, and assigned [to the category of] savage subhumans, offenders can then be harshly punished and ill‐treated for what they have done” (Vasiljevic & Viki, , p. 133; see also Bastian, Laham, Wilson, Haslam, & Koval, , and Vasquez, Loughnan, Gootjes‐Dreesbach, & Weger, ).…”