Blatant Dehumanisation Flashcards
DEHUMANISATION
- pioneering work was influenced by mass killings following WW2
- focused on blatant dehumanisation characterised by overt conflict/hostility
HASLAM & LOUGHMANN (2014)
- 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
BANDURA ET AL. (1975)
- 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
“NEW” DEHUMANISATION
- recent conceptualisations broadened theoretical focus to ^ subtle expressions aka. operationalised it as attribution of fewer human traits/emotions/experiences to others > oneself (ingroup)
HAQUE & WAYTZ (2012); LEYENS ET AL. (2001)
- “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
HASLAM & LOUGHNAN (2014)
- research imbalance on subtle VS blatant dehumanisation = interrelationship “remains uncertain”
KTEILY ET AL. (2015)
- 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
HASLAM ET AL. (2013)
- understanding/measuring explicit blatant dehumanisation provides utility over subtle/indirect dehumanisation forms that may occur outside conscious awareness
KTEILY ET AL. (2015): THE ASCENT OF MAN PROCEDURE
KTEILY ET AL. (2015): METHOD
KTEILY ET AL. (2015): RESULTS
KTEILY ET AL. (2017): THE ASCENT MEASURE
KTEILY ET AL. (2017): RESULTS
KTEILY ET AL. (2015/2017): DISCUSSION
- 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
OBESITY
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
OBESITY: KERSBERGEN & ROBINSON (2019)
- 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
KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019): METHOD
KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 1
KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 1: RESULTS
KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 2: PROCEDURE
KERSBERGEN & ROBISON (2019) EXP 2: RESULTS
MENTAL ILLNESS
- 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
MENTAL ILLNESS: STEREOTYPES
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
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: PARTICIPANTS
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: PROCEDURE
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 1: RESULTS
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 2: PROCEDURE
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 2: RESULTS
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 3: PROCEDURE
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020) EXP 3: RESULTS
BOYSEN ET AL. (2020): DISCUSSION
- 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
NEURAL PROCESSES
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
GREY ET AL. (2007)
- 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018)
- 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)
HARRIS & FISKE (2006; 2007)
- 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
MEDIAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX (MPFC)
- 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): STIMULI
- 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): METHODOLOGY
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): BEHAVIOURAL RESULTS
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): FMRI RESULTS
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): DISCUSSION
- 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION I
- 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION II
- ^ 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III
- ^ 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
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III: FARROW ET AL. (2011)
- let lateralised IFC region = ^ active when explicitly judging relative famous people status VS judgements about same targets on other dimensions ie. age/gender/fame
BRUNEAU ET AL. (2018): IFC ACTIVITY INTERPRETATION III: CLOUTIER ET AL. (2012)
- partially overlapping IFC region (also left-lateralised) responded ^ strongly when passively viewing financially low VS high status people images
