Dehumanization, the psychological process by which individuals or groups of individuals are denied human qualities or are believed to be less than human, has important negative consequences for intergroup relations: dehumanization reduces intergroup helping and excuses aggression towards members of other groups. Current models of dehumanization are unable to explain the variety of dehumanization that occurs in metaphorical thought. For example, they cannot account for the labeling of comatose individuals as “vegetables,” nor do they adequately distinguish between of humans as predators vs. metaphors of humans as prey. We argue that this results from the paucity of attention devoted to the role of agency in the dehumanization process. The ABC model of dehumanization proposed in this paper broadens the scope of dehumanization theory by describing three unique components of agency: affective, behavioral, and cognitive. This article then delineates how the differential attribution of agency components impacts emotional responses toward out‐groups in addition to the metaphors used to describe them. By incorporating both traditional types of dehumanization (extreme and overt negative evaluations) and ambivalent types of dehumanization (mixed positive and negative evaluations) into our model, we provide a more nuanced view of the dehumanization process that accounts for the variance in dehumanization by analogy.

No abstract

The present study investigated preference for linguistically biased characterization of events attributed to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential election cycle. The linguistic intergroup bias (LIB) reflects abstract characterization of positive events attributed to ingroup members and negative events attributed to outgroup members; conversely, it also reflects concrete characterization of negative events attributed to outgroup members and positive events attributed to outgroup members. University students (N = 117) who preferred Hillary Clinton completed on-line measures before and after the 2016 Presidential election, including liberal-conservative ideology and measures of LIB. Participants showed clear preference for characterizations consistent with LIB (e.g., Clinton is intelligent; Trump is quick-tempered). This pattern was more pronounced as strength of liberal ideology increased; it also was more pronounced immediately following the election than after time had passed. A smaller sample of Trump supporters also showed LIB favoring Trump. This study is the first to demonstrate that members of the electorate gravitate towards linguistic characterizations that favor their preferred political candidates and that this tendency is exacerbated by a relevant individual difference. Findings have implications for the continued polarization of the American electorate.

Dehumanization has historically been credited with facilitating intergroup conflict. Such conflict is often evidenced and exacerbated by damaging imagery communicated by speakers both within and outside a social group. Our article in Social and Personality Psychology Compass outlines the different dehumanizing metaphors (e.g., vermin, wild animals, and domesticated animals) used to evoke images of persons and groups as lacking essential components of humanness. Because dehumanizing metaphors cognitively equate the source (non-human) and target (person), they encourage listeners to emotionally and behaviorally respond to the target as if it were the source.Our article offers a review of empirical findings concerning the denial of humanness to others, with particular emphasis on linguistic theories of conceptual metaphor and social cognitive theories of mind attribution. Much of the research on dehumanization has tended to focus on either ambivalent or extreme types of dehumanization, with few theories addressing both in tandem. By doing so, in this article, we hope to bring greater nuance to the study of dehumanization.This teaching and learning guide offers suggestions for ways teachers might encourage students to discuss the prevalence of metaphoric thought, its persuasive qualities, and areas where its use becomes more harmful than beneficial. This teaching and learning guide also offers insight into the ways in which we dehumanize others, the damaging emotions and behaviors that result, and how we might better identify and reject such damaging portrayals. Author RecommendsUnless noted otherwise, readings are appropriate for introductory level students (e.g., high school seniors and lower-division college students). Papers marked "advanced" are more appropriate for senior psychology majors and graduate students. On conceptual metaphor Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 277-298. (Advanced Reading)The results from two studies demonstrated that metaphor irrelevant information (e.g., Geese can swim) is inhibited during metaphor comprehension (My lawyer is a shark). These inhibitory effects are not attributable to lexical priming: metaphor sources alone (e.g., shark) primed neither metaphor relevant (e.g., vicious) nor metaphor irrelevant (e.g., swim) words.

No abstract