Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Biological Basis of Behaviour II > Blatant Dehumanisation > Flashcards

Blatant Dehumanisation Flashcards

1
Q

DEHUMANISATION

A
  • pioneering work was influenced by mass killings following WW2
  • focused on blatant dehumanisation characterised by overt conflict/hostility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

HASLAM & LOUGHMANN (2014)

A
  • dehumanisation = psychological process; strips others of group identity; puts them outside normal moral consideration; highlights “their” value incongruence w/”ours”
  • aka. facilitates violence against dehumanised groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

BANDURA ET AL. (1975)

A
  • blatant dehumanisation = overt & aggressive
  • pps serving as “teachers” in remote learning paradigm delivered stronger shocks to “student” groups if experimented earlier described them in dehumanising terms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

“NEW” DEHUMANISATION

A
  • recent conceptualisations broadened theoretical focus to ^ subtle expressions aka. operationalised it as attribution of fewer human traits/emotions/experiences to others > oneself (ingroup)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

HAQUE & WAYTZ (2012); LEYENS ET AL. (2001)

A
  • “new” dehumanisation research largely set aside contexts characterised by war/genocide to examine “everyday” dehumanisation ie:
    HAQUE & WAYTZ (2012)
  • doctors’ patient perceptions in hospital settings
    LEYENS ET AL. (2001)
  • peoples views of each other across (largely peaceful) national boundaries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

HASLAM & LOUGHNAN (2014)

A
  • research imbalance on subtle VS blatant dehumanisation = interrelationship “remains uncertain”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2015)

A
  • aimed to establish theoretical important of blatant dehumanisation beyond established subtle dehumanisation indices dominating topic
  • gave comprehensive comparison of blatant VS subtle dehumanisation across intergroup attitude/beh range
  • aimed to provide useful/validated/generalisable empirical tool measuring blatant dehumanisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

HASLAM ET AL. (2013)

A
  • understanding/measuring explicit blatant dehumanisation provides utility over subtle/indirect dehumanisation forms that may occur outside conscious awareness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2015): THE ASCENT OF MAN PROCEDURE

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2015): METHOD

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2015): RESULTS

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2017): THE ASCENT MEASURE

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2017): RESULTS

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

KTEILY ET AL. (2015/2017): DISCUSSION

A
  • some groups perceived as less evolved < Americans; dehumanisation varied across groups
  • blatant dehumanisation = Chinese/South Korean/Mexian immigrants/Muslims/Arabs
  • equal to American ascent = Europeans/Australians/Japanese
  • theoretical importance of blatant dehumanisation established over 7 studies beyond established subtle dehumanisation indices dominating topic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

OBESITY

A

JACKSON ET AL. (2015)
- obesity = common BUT obese people frequently report experiencing mistreatment due to weight
PUHL ET AL. (2009)
- people hold negative attitudes/stereotypes about obesity & treat people w/obesity unfairly in various settings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

OBESITY: KERSBERGEN & ROBINSON (2019)

A
  • understanding what facilitates obesity discrimination = important as it affects mental/physical health
  • authors examined possibility that prejudiced beliefs about obesity run deeper than previously assumed & obese people = blatantly dehumanised
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019): METHOD

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 1

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 1: RESULTS

A
20
Q

KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 2: PROCEDURE

A
21
Q

KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 2: RESULTS

A
22
Q

MENTAL ILLNESS

A
  • stigma research tends to emphasise prejudice/discrimination faced by people w/mental illness; blatant dehumanisation may provide insight into psychological processes underlying prejudice/discrimination
  • research suggests people w/mental illnesses should face greater dehumanisation > other social groups BUT no emerged evidence
  • no studies asked for direct judgements about basic humanity of people w/mental illness aka. need to determine if people w/mental illness = targets of blatant dehumanisation
23
Q

MENTAL ILLNESS: STEREOTYPES

A

BOYSEN (2017); FISKE (2012)
- lacking warmth/incompetence
CUDDY ET AL. (2007; 2008)
- lowest possible social category w/poor/homeless
MARTINEZ ET AL. (2011)
- research has NOT displayed people w/mental illness dehumanised > people w/physical illnesses
MARTINEZ (2014)
- animal-trait attribution > human-traits

24
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: PARTICIPANTS

A
25
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: PROCEDURE

A
26
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: RESULTS

A
27
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 2: PROCEDURE

A
28
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 2: RESULTS

A
29
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 3: PROCEDURE

A
30
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 3: RESULTS

A
31
Q

BOYSEN ET AL. (2020): DISCUSSION

A
  • consistent evidence for blatant dehumanisation of people w/mental illness; dehumanised > other social groups highly dehumanised by Americans
    KTEILY & BRUNEAU (2017)
  • current studies = consistent w/previous dehumanisation/stigma research aka. negative effects of blatant dehumanisation on social groups defined by ethnicity/race/religion/politics
  • current research demonstrated that effects generalise to new target group defined by medical diagnosis > social identity
32
Q

NEURAL PROCESSES

A

HASLAM & LOUGHNAN (2014)
- relatively little know about neural processes underlying dehumanisation/distinguishing it from related processes
- qs remain about neural overlap degree between dehumanisation/dislike
- 1 important concern w/blatant dehumanisation measures = people may use them as convenient way to express strong dislike aka. antipathy manifestations

33
Q

GREY ET AL. (2007)

A
  • we can consciously deny full human mind to kids/dogs via attributing them less agency despite having ^ fondness to them
  • we also humanise those we dislike ie. via recognising fully human capabilities of brilliant BUT arrogant colleague
34
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018)

A
  • researchers sought to examine distinction between blatant dehumanisation VS dislike via functional MRI (fMRI)
  • hypothesis: blatant dehumanisation judgements (assessed via ascent) = neurally distinct from dislike judgements (assessed via feeling thermometers)
35
Q

HARRIS & FISKE (2006; 2007)

A
  • neuroimaging study pps presented w/marginalised people pics perceived w/low warmth/competence (ie. homeless/drug addicts) VS groups w/^ warmth/competence (ie. college students/fire fighters)
  • 2 studies; passively viewed low warmth images = associated w/less activity in medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) > high warmths
36
Q

MEDIAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX (MPFC)

A
  • plays important regulatory role in numerous cognitive functions ie. attention/inhibitory control/habit formation & working/spatial & LTM
  • MPFC damage = blunted emotional responses; sometimes ^ aggression; struggle w/initiating activities; poor task performance w/long-term planning/impulse inhibition
37
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): STIMULI

A
  • high-status human groups (ie. Americans/Europeans/surgeons)
  • low-status human groups (ie. homeless/Muslims/Gypsies)
  • animals (rats/puppies); including both liked/disliked animals included targets most expected to separate dehumanisation/dislike
38
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): METHODOLOGY

A
39
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): BEHAVIOURAL RESULTS

A
40
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): FMRI RESULTS

A
41
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): DISCUSSION

A
  • examined neural responses associated w/blatant dehumanisation judgements; compared w/neural responses associated w/dislike judgements
  • dehumanisation/dislike distinction = interesting; previous research = general antipathy
  • response profile providing most compelling/consistent dehumanisation role evidence = left IFC; activation = ^ sensitive to blatant dehumanisation judgements > liking judges
  • left IPC region activation = uniquely parametrically modulated via dehumanisation judgements (VS others) BUT little evidence of activation differentiating between high/low status groups
42
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION I

A
  • left IFC = task-positive network activity serving to reduce activity in default mode network associated w/mentalising
    WAYTZ & SHROEDER (2014)
  • suggests ^ activity in response to animals/low-status humans in left IFC serves to reduce mentalising toward them aka. dehumanising them via denying minds
43
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION II

A
  • ^ activity in left IFC responding to low VS high-status groups while rating groups on Ascent Dehumanisation scale = due to ^ cognitive control/self-sanctioning when making provocation/politically incorrect judgements about low-status others
44
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III

A
  • ^ activity in left IFC when making dehumanising judgements about low-status groups/animals could represent sensitivities to social hierarchy considerations
  • studies exist providing converging evidence for left IFC relevance in processing social status
45
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III: FARROW ET AL. (2011)

A
  • let lateralised IFC region = ^ active when explicitly judging relative famous people status VS judgements about same targets on other dimensions ie. age/gender/fame
46
Q

BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III: CLOUTIER ET AL. (2012)

A
  • partially overlapping IFC region (also left-lateralised) responded ^ strongly when passively viewing financially low VS high status people images

Biological Basis of Behaviour II (25 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions