In this article, dehumanization of patients was studied as a strategy used by nurses to cope with stress. Affective organizational commitment (AOC) and affective commitment to patients (ACP) were tested as moderators.We also explored how nurses’ humanity attributions to their in-group relate to stress symptoms. Participants were nurses working in different wards of an Italian urban hospital. Findings showed that perceiving patients as not fully human was related to lower levels of stress symptoms for nurses with high AOC and ACP, but not for nurses with low AOC and ACP. Moreover, for highly committed nurses, the attribution of uniquely human traits to the in-group was associated with increased stress symptoms. Implications of findings for the relationship between nurses and patients are discussed

In two studies, we tested the hypothesis that categorization of ambiguous human/ape faces depends on group membership: people are inclined to protect ingroup humanity, but not that of the outgroup. We used as stimuli: human, ape, ambiguous human/ape faces. Ambiguous human/ape faces were generated using a computerized morphing procedure. Participants categorized stimuli as human or ape. Two conditions were introduced: in the ingroup condition, participants were informed that human exemplars were ingroup members, in the outgroup condition that they were outgroup members. We expected participants, in an effort to protect ingroup humanity, to categorize ambiguous stimuli as ape more often in the ingroup than outgroup condition. Predictions were confirmed. Results are discussed in the context of infrahumanization theory

Individuals tend to associate uniquely human features, for example the fact of feeling secondary emotions, more to ingroup than to outgroup. However, little evidence exists for a direct link between the concept of humankind and ingroup. In Study 1, participants were presented with pictures of humans and apes. Pictures were preceded by a supraliminal prime: names typical of ingroup versus outgroup. In Study 2, participants had to decide whether a string of letters represented a person name; names were typical of ingroup versus outgroup and preceded by a subliminal presentation of a human or monkey face. In both studies, faster latencies for human/ingroup than human/outgroup associations were found. An evaluative task confirmed no difference in valence between the human and animal face. Conclusions underline the importance of considering also the animal dimension in studying social cognition, and propose future avenues to identify variables shifting outgroup perception from infra-to dehumanization.According to evolutionary theory, humans developed from ape-like ancestors. A sort of transmutation happened between apes and humans through successive approximations from partially apes to partial humans. "The missing link" is a popular term meaning transitional forms from "lower" animals to humans. As far as social perception is concerned, individuals seem to rely on such a perspective in intergroup judgments. They perceive groups to which they belong as more prototypical of the human species, assigning a "missing link" nature to outgroups.Infrahumanization theory (Leyens et al.

Across three studies, we examined whether ingroup status may affect intergroup perceptions of\ud humanity. In Studies 1 and 2, we considered real groups: Northern versus Southern Italians; in Study\ud 3, we manipulated the socioeconomic status of two minimal groups. In all studies, members of higher\ud status groups perceived the ingroup as more human than the outgroup, while members of lower status\ud groups did not assign a privileged human status to the ingroup. Such findings were obtained using\ud different implicit techniques: the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the Go/No-go Association Task\ud (GNAT). Further, results suggest that the different perceptions of humanity may depend on the\ud stereotypic traits generally ascribed to higher and lower status groups. The implications of results for\ud infrahumanization research are discussed

The attribution of uniquely human characteristics to the outgroup may favor the search for contact with outgroup members and, vice versa, contact experiences may improve humanity attributions to the outgroup. To explore this bidirectional relationship, two studies were performed. In Study 1, humanity perceptions were manipulated using subliminal conditioning. Two experimental conditions were created. In the humanization condition, the unconditioned stimuli (US) were uniquely human words; in the dehumanization condition, the US were non-uniquely human and animal words. In both conditions, conditioned stimuli were typical outgroup faces. An approach/avoidance technique (the manikin task) was used to measure the willingness to have contact with outgroup members. Findings showed that in the humanization condition participants were faster in approaching than in avoiding outgroup members: closeness to the outgroup was preferred to distance. Latencies of approach and avoidance movements were not different in the dehumanization condition. In Study 2, contact was manipulated using the manikin task. One approach (contact) condition and two control conditions were created. The attribution of uniquely human traits to the outgroup was stronger in the contact than in the no-contact conditions. Furthermore, the effect of contact on humanity attributions was mediated by increased trust toward the outgroup. Thus, findings demonstrate the bidirectionality of the relationship between contact and humanity attributions. Practical implications of findings are discussed.