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

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.

On the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the overcrowding in prisons led to efforts to decarcerate in order to prevent and control outbreaks in prisons. This study analyses how public support for such exceptional measures are determined by cognitive and ideological factors known to create and maintain racial biases in the criminal system. Participants were asked to express their level of agreement with the early-release of hypothetical prisoners. Results showed participants to be less favourable to the early-release of Black compared to White prisoners, when they had committed a stereotypically Black crime. As expected, the congruency between the crime stereotypicality and the colour of the prisoner’s skin did not emerge for White prisoners. Moreover, the difference between the agreement with the release of the Black vs. the White prisoner when both committed a stereotypically Black crime was higher as the level of endorsement of Meritocracy increased. Contrastingly, Anti-egalitarianism only predicted an overall disagreement with prisoners’ early-release. This paper highlights the cumulative explanation by different levels of analysis of this current problem and implications for the development of the public opinion on penal subjects.

The study of humanness as a dimension of social judgment has received extensive attention over the past decade. Although the common reported finding is that people attribute more human characteristics to their ingroup than to the outgroup, similar tendencies are expected to be tempered for minority groups when judging the host society. In Study 1, carried out with Gypsy minority members, we tested the hypothesis that those group members who adopt an assimilative strategy identifying more with the host compared with the heritage culture will display the lowest levels of dehumanisation. In Studies 2 and 3, conducted with immigrants in Italy and in Portugal, respectively, the hypothesis was extended from an identification conceptualisation to an acculturation one. Despite significant variability in intergroup settings and measures, results confirmed our hypothesis that immigrants who choose to assimilate with the host culture dehumanise the outgroup less compared with those who adopt any of the other acculturation strategies. Implications for the ethnocentric nature of dehumanisation biases and for intergroup relations in general are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Escala de Avaliação da Coesão e Flexibilidade Familiar, desenvolvida no âmbito do estudo do Modelo Circumplexo dos Sistemas Conjugais e Familiares, permite avaliar o funcionamento familiar através de um diagnóstico relacional. Este instrumento está subdividido em seis subescalas que permitem uma avaliação dos níveis equilibrados e disfuncionais (extremamente baixos e extremamente elevados) das dimensões de coesão e flexibilidade familiar. O Pacote FACES IV inclui ainda dois questionários que permitem a avaliação da comunicação e satisfação familiar. O presente artigo analisa as propriedades psicométricas dos instrumentos incluídos no Pacote FACES IV junto de uma amostra de adolescentes portugueses em dois estudos. No primeiro estudo, incluímos um grupo comunitário de 757 estudantes e um grupo clínico de 67 adolescentes que recorrem a consultas psiquiátricas. Os resultados deste estudo revelaram um modelo fatorial de 24 itens com qualidades psicométricas satisfatórias, permitindo concluir um ajustamento aceitável à nossa amostra. No segundo estudo, a solução fatorial obtida no estudo anterior foi replicada junto de uma amostra independente de 707 jovens estudantes. Os resultados desta validação apresentam o FACES IV como um instrumento útil para o diagnóstico familiar junto de adolescentes portugueses.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract