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

Abstract

Mostly invigorated by infrahumanisation theory, our knowledge on processes of dehumanisation in intergroup relations has grown considerably in the last decade. Building on these earlier endeavours, the present chapter reviews some recent empirical extensions that highlight the importance of differentiating between ingroup humanisation and outgroup dehumanisation because they are often moderated by specific variables. The role of these separate processes is discussed as a function of the main structural elements that define intergroup behaviour; that is, the defining boundaries of the groups, the relation between the groups at hand, and the ideologies of its members. Finally, the role of the different senses of humanness is discussed, suggesting that the folk conception of humanness differs between cultures

Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men

“…Dehumanization occurs when people perceive others as belonging to a lower order of humanity (Haslam, ; Vaes, Leyens, Paladino, & Miranda, ). Instances of dehumanization of gay people emerge in hate crimes against sexual minorities (Herek, Cogan, & Gills, ), anti‐gay rhetoric, and even in descriptions of aggression toward homosexuals (Herek, ).…”

“…Critically for the present research, dehumanization is not inevitable in the context of sexual orientation (Brown & Hegarty, ). However, where it does occur, it can result in reduced empathy and support, and greater tolerance of cruelty (Vaes et al, ; Viki, Osgood, & Phillips, ). Finally, dehumanizing goes hand in hand with the exclusion from moral concern (Bastian & Haslam, ; Opotow, ).…”

Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting surprise in the face of unexpected category combinations

“…In particular, Leyens et al (2000;2003) have repeatedly shown the infrahumanization effect, whereby participants attribute fewer secondary emotions (i.e. uniquely human emotions such as, pride, melancholy, shame, embarrassment, remorse, compassion) to outgroup members than to ingroupers (for a review, see Vaes, Leyens, Paladino, Pires, 2012; see also Haslam, Loughnan, Kashima, & Bain, 2008;Struch & Schwartz, 1989). However, while dehumanization represents one of the most robust forms of intergroup bias, little is known of the socio-cognitive processes that can inhibit this phenomenon.…”

Would you forgive Kristen Stewart or Tiger Woods or maybe Lance Armstrong? Exploring consumers’ forgiveness of celebrities’ transgressions

“…brought them to the same level as their admirers and gave them ordinariness (Gies, 2011). This humanisation moves the celebrity 'closer' to the participant's in-group (Vaes, Leyens, Paladino, & Pires Miranda, 2012) or comparative reference group (Escalas & Bettman, 2003Kelley, 1947) thus reducing the psychological distance (McCutcheon et al, 2003;Zhao, 2003). Participants, like Alisha, realised that celebrities making mistakes made them human too:…”