They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.

Abstract

Although the act of dehumanizing an outgroup is a pervasive and potent intergroup process that drives discrimination and conflict, no formal research has examined the consequences of being dehumanized by an outgroup-that is, "metadehumanization." Across 10 studies (N = 3,440) involving several real-world conflicts spanning 3 continents, we provide the first empirical evidence that metadehumanization (a) plays a central role in outgroup aggression that is (b) mediated by outgroup dehumanization, and (c) distinct from metaprejudice. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate experimentally that Americans who learn that Arabs (Study 1a) or Muslims (Study 1b) blatantly dehumanize Americans are more likely to dehumanize that outgroup in return; by contrast, experimentally increasing outgroup dehumanization did not increase metadehumanization (Study 1c). Using correlational data, Study 2 documents indirect effects of metadehumanization on Americans' support for aggressive policies toward Arabs (e.g., torture) via Arab dehumanization. In the context of Hungarians and ethnic minority Roma, Study 3 shows that the pathway for Hungarians from metadehumanization to aggression through outgroup dehumanization holds controlling for outgroup prejudice. Study 4 examines Israelis' metaperceptions with respect to Palestinians, showing that: (a) feeling dehumanized (i.e., metadehumanization) is distinct from feeling disliked (i.e., metaprejudice), and (b) metadehumanization uniquely influences aggression through outgroup dehumanization, controlling for metaprejudice. Studies 5a and 5b explore Americans' metaperceptions regarding ISIS and Iran. We document a dehumanization-specific pathway from metadehumanization to aggressive attitudes and behavior that is distinct from the path from metaprejudice through prejudice to aggression. In Study 6, American participants learning that Muslims humanize Americans (i.e., metahumanization) humanize Muslims in turn. Finally, Study 7 experimentally contrasts metadehumanization and metahumanization primes, and shows that resulting differences in outgroup dehumanization are mediated by (a) perceived identity threat, and (b) a general desire to reciprocate the outgroup's perceptions of the ingroup. In summary, our research outlines how and why metadehumanization contributes to cycles of ongoing violence and animosity, providing direction for future research and policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity.

“…Although studying blatant dehumanization may be particularly important given the relationship to real-world outcomes (e.g., Kteily et al, 2016), it remains an open question as to whether these effects generalize to subtler measures of humanity. The primary goal of Study 2 was to test whether fWHR influences ascriptions of agency and experience.…”

The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare

“…During the 2014 Gaza war, our sample of Israelis (members of the high power group) expressed extremely hostile attitudes towards Palestinians (members of the low power group), including the highest levels of blatant dehumanization towards any outgroup observed to date using the ‘Ascent of man’ measure of blatant dehumanization (i.e., higher than has been observed among American, English and Hungarian participants rating over two dozen different groups, including ISIS; [10], [33], [34]). Indeed, we found that Israelis rated Palestinians closer to an animal on the scale than to a ‘fully evolved’ human.…”

“…Indeed, we found that Israelis rated Palestinians closer to an animal on the scale than to a ‘fully evolved’ human. This blatant dehumanization of Palestinians was also potent: even beyond subjective ratings of group power and ideological variables known to be strongly associated with intergroup hostility in this context (i.e., SDO and conservatism), dehumanization was uniquely associated with hostile attitudes likely to perpetuate cycles of intergroup conflict [29], [33], including unwillingness to negotiate, collective aggression and endorsement of massive civilian casualties. Interestingly, although we observed that the subjective perception of group power was weakly correlated with higher levels of blatant dehumanization, the association between dehumanization and outcomes was equally strong across levels of perceived power.…”

The unique effects of blatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards Muslim refugees during the European ‘refugee crisis’ across four countries

“…We examined the unique contribution of blatant dehumanization to intergroup attitudes and behavior in concert with a range of other predictors. Previous work assessing the unique association between dehumanization and intergroup outcomes has included as parallel predictors measures of ideological orientation—including social dominance orientation (SDO; Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, & Mihic, ; Kteily et al, ), right‐wing authoritarianism (Kteily et al, ), and political conservatism (Kteily et al, ; Kteily, Hodson, & Bruneau, ; Leidner, Castano, & Ginges, ; Maoz & McCauley, ), as well as measures of prejudice (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, ; Goff, Jackson, Di Leone, Culotta, & DiTomasso, ; Jardina & Piston, ; Kteily & Bruneau, ; Kteily et al, ; Kteily et al, ). In the current research, we also include measures of political conservatism and affective prejudice.…”