Attributing and denying humanness to others

Abstract

We review a programme of research on the attribution of humanness to people, and the ways in which lesser humanness is attributed to some compared to others. We first present evidence that humanness has two distinct senses, one representing properties that are unique to our species, and the other-human nature-those properties that are essential or fundamental to the human category. An integrative model of dehumanisation is then laid out, in which distinct forms of dehumanisation correspond to the denial of the two senses of humanness, and the likening of people to particular kinds of nonhuman entities (animals and machines). Studies demonstrating that human nature attributes are ascribed more to the self than to others are reviewed, along with evidence of the phenomenon's cognitive and motivational basis. Research also indicates that both kinds of humanness are commonly denied to social groups, both explicitly and implicitly, and that they may cast a new light on the study of stereotype content. Our approach to the study of dehumanisation complements the tradition of research on infrahumanisation, and indicates new directions for exploring the importance of humanness as a dimension of social perception.Humanness is a fundamental but neglected concept in social psychology. We ascribe it to some entities and deny it to others, and these ascriptions and denials have real consequences. On the one hand, we attribute humanness to ourselves and to other members of our species in a way that is taken for granted, but also perceive some nonhuman entities as if they were human. Beloved pets, temperamental computers, and spiritual beings are sometimes Correspondence should be addressed to Nick Haslam, Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 22:04 08 February 2015anthropomorphised, and seen to possess desires, beliefs, and emotions much like our own. On the other hand, history is riddled with occasions when some groups of people have been denied their humanity. Perceiving others as less than human, likening them to beasts or unfeeling objects, and treating them with inhumanity are common occurrences in times of war, genocide, and ethnic conflict. Denials of humanness can also be observed in more everyday phenomena: common terms of abuse compare people to nonhuman entities, individuals who violate social norms are described as beasts or monsters in the news media, and discourse about race and gender contains explicit or thinly veiled comparisons of people to animals. These forms of dehumanisation are, in short, frequently employed strategies in intergroup contexts.This chapter reviews recent research and theory on humanness and the ways in which it is ascribed or denied to others, a topic that has begun to attract lively theoretical and empirical interest. We first attempt the basic theoretical task of clarifying the meaning of humanness, a notoriously slippery concept. Taking off from an important and influential line of research on infrahumanisation (Demoulin et al., 2004b), which defines humanness as that which is unique to ...

Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting surprise in the face of unexpected category combinations

“…In particular, Leyens et al (2000;2003) have repeatedly shown the infrahumanization effect, whereby participants attribute fewer secondary emotions (i.e. uniquely human emotions such as, pride, melancholy, shame, embarrassment, remorse, compassion) to outgroup members than to ingroupers (for a review, see Vaes, Leyens, Paladino, Pires, 2012; see also Haslam, Loughnan, Kashima, & Bain, 2008;Struch & Schwartz, 1989). However, while dehumanization represents one of the most robust forms of intergroup bias, little is known of the socio-cognitive processes that can inhibit this phenomenon.…”

Civilian Casualties and Public Support for Military Action: Experimental Evidence

“…One derives from the 'foreign-ness' of civilian casualties, which in turn contributes to their outgroup status (Rothbart and Korostelina 2006). Of the many studies of hostility against outgroups, some have highlighted infrahumanization -an implicit tendency to regard the outgroup as lacking some essentially human characteristics (Castano and Giner-Sorolla 2006;Haslam et al 2008) -as a mechanism by which the public might play down the cost and significance of civilian casualties. A final reason for expecting limited public responsiveness to civilian casualties is the phenomenon of proportional numbing, whereby people become "less sensitive to losses of life when those statistical losses are construed as small fractions of larger reference groups of at-risk individuals" (Friedrich andDood 2009, 2542).…”

We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup

“…Meanwhile other perspectives emerged proposing that an adequate understanding of humanness-the quality that is denied to others when they are dehumanised-is necessary in order to get a full grasp of what it means to dehumanise others (Haslam, 2006 Haslam, Loughnan, Kashima, & Bain, 2008) systematically looked at the human concept from these perspectives and in this way distinguished between two senses of humanness. The first includes a set of core or central human attributes that involve emotionality, warmth, cognitive openness, agency, and depth, and is referred to as human nature.…”