Dehumanisation Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is the new perspective of dehumanisation?
- Broadened the theoretical focus to more subtle expressions
- Operationalised it as attribution of fewer human traits, emotions, and experiences to others than oneself
What did Haslam (2013) say about blatant dehumanisation?
Understanding and measuring explicit blatant dehumanisation provides utility over and above subtler and more indirect forms of dehumanisation that may even occur outside conscious awareness
What was the Kteily et al. (2015) study 1?
- 201 US Ps - 153 White/European Americans
- Ps completed questionnaire that included the Ascent dehumanisation measure toward several groups
- Some groups removed from analysis
What were the measures in the Kteily et al. (2015) study 1?
- Blatant dehumanisation using Ascent measure
- Continuous slider from 0 - 10 for each ethnic group
What were the results of Kteily et al. (2015) study 1?
- Post hoc tests revealed that Arabs and Muslims were rated as significantly less evolved than all other groups.
What are discussion points of Kteily’s studies?
- Amount of dehumanisation varied across groups - blatant dehumanisation of Asians, Mexicans, Muslims and Arabs
What did Kersbergen & Robinson find about dehumanisation and obesity?
- Possibility that prejudiced beliefs about obesity run deeper than previously assumed and that people with obesity are blatantly dehumanized
What was the sample in Kersbergen & Robinson’s studies (2019)?
S1
- N=101
- Mean Age = 37
- Ethnicity = 87.1% Caucasian
S2
- N=597
- Mean Age = 27
- Ethnicity = 79.2% Caucasian
What were the results of Experiment 1 (Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019)?
- Paired t-test revealed that ‘Obese Americans’ were considered as significantly less evolved than ‘Americans’ (p<.001)
What was Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019 study 2?
- Same scale as S1 (Ascent scale)
- Charity donation - either an animal or human charity - dependent on condition, the charity did/did not explicitly benefit obese US citizens
What were the results of Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019 study 2?
- Same findings as S1
- In US citizens charity condition, 39.8% of Ps donated to human charity compared to only 16% of Ps donating to obese condition
What was Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019 study 3?
- Authors investigated whether blatant dehumanisation of people with obesity would generalise to other cultural contexts - UK/India
- 422 Ps (374 after reductions)
- Same procedure as S2
What were the results of Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019 study 3?
- Obese Indians were rated significantly less human than Indians (p<.001)
- Obese Brits were rated significantly less human than Brits (p<.001)
- Same results for US Ps
What were the results of the charity task in Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019 study 3?
- Citizens charity = 47.9%
- Obese charity = 42.5%
- No significant interaction between country of residence and charity condition
What was Boysen et al (2020)’ Study 1?
- Establish existence of blatant dehumanisation of people with mental illness
- Ascent scale used to rate other social groups
What were the results of Boysen et al (2020)’ Study 1?
- Over a hald a standard deviation separated people with mental illnesses from the least dehumanised group
- Participants blatantly dehumanized people with mental illness significantly less than violent criminals but significantly more than Americans, Christians, Mexican immigrants, and Muslims.
What was Boysen et al (2020)’ Study 2?
- Mainly white females
- Ps instructed to evaluate 13 mental disorders that are commonly recognised
- Rated on Ascent scale
What were the results of study 2 (Boysen et al (2020)’ ?
- 2 SD’s between most dehumanised disorder and least dehumanised disorder
What was Boysen et al (2020)’ Study 3?
- Same recruitment method as S1 - mostly white females
- Ascent scale used to evaluate Americans, people with mental illness, and violent criminals
- Evaluated 3 groups
What were the results of Boysen et al (2020)’ Study 3?
Blatant dehumanisation of violent criminals was most prevalent, then people with mental illness
- All groups significantly different from each other
What did Haslam and Loughnan (2014) say about the neuroscience of dehumanisation?
One important concern with blatant measures of dehumanisation is that people may be using them as a convenient way to express strong dislike, making them a manifestation of antipathy (show how much they dislike someone)
What did Harris and Fiske (2006) find?
- Ps in a neuroimaging study were presented with images of people from groups percieved to be low in warmth/competence and images of people from groups with high warmth/competence
- Passively viewing images of low warmth/competence group members was associated with less activity in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC)
What is the stereotype content model (SCM)?
Predicts a fundamental friend/foe judgement (warmth) plus a capability judgement (competence)
- These dimensions differentiate out-groups into 4 warmth competence clusters
What happens with the SCM and the MPFC?
Social groups low in warmth and competence are seen as less than human - the mPFC isn’t activated necessarily
- Likened to objects
