Does status affect intergroup perceptions of humanity?

Abstract

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

Intergroup Contact and Outgroup Humanization: Is the Causal Relationship Uni- or Bidirectional?

“…For the human/animal dimension, we employed five human (bachelor, citizen, human, humans, young boy) and five animal (animal, animals, cub, fauna, specimen) words: the same used as US in the conditioning procedure (see S1 Appendix). In pilot studies [15], we found that the human and animal concepts do not differ in valence. In accordance with IAT procedures, participants were presented with five blocks of practice trials and two blocks of critical trials.…”

“…As CS, we used six typical Moroccan faces (males); as US, we used uniquely human words (humanization condition) or non-uniquely human and animal-related words (dehumanization condition). The uniquely human words were: four uniquely human traits (e.g., rationality, morality; see [4]); six secondary emotions–three positive (e.g., pride, optimism) and three negative (e.g., regret, shame); five words expressing concepts unique to the human species (e.g., humans and citizen [15]). The non-uniquely human or animal-related words were: four non-uniquely human traits (e.g., instinct, impulsiveness [4]); six primary emotions–three positive (e.g., pleasure, excitement) and three negative (e.g., rage, pain); five words expressing concepts unique to the animal category (e.g., animals and cub [15]).…”

“…The uniquely human words were: four uniquely human traits (e.g., rationality, morality; see [4]); six secondary emotions–three positive (e.g., pride, optimism) and three negative (e.g., regret, shame); five words expressing concepts unique to the human species (e.g., humans and citizen [15]). The non-uniquely human or animal-related words were: four non-uniquely human traits (e.g., instinct, impulsiveness [4]); six primary emotions–three positive (e.g., pleasure, excitement) and three negative (e.g., rage, pain); five words expressing concepts unique to the animal category (e.g., animals and cub [15]). In pilot studies, we found that the uniquely human and non-uniquely human traits did not differ in valence [4]; the same result was found for the uniquely human and uniquely animal concepts [15] (the US employed in the humanization and dehumanization conditions are reported in S1 Appendix).…”

“…However, the other groups are not only infrahumanized, they may also be dehumanized, and different forms of dehumanization have been discovered. Outgroups are assimilated to animals when they are perceived as lacking the unique features of the human species (see [15–18]); outgroups are assimilated to machines when they are perceived as lacking the essential features of human nature (e.g., emotionality, vitality, and warmth; see [1, 19], see also [20]). Dementalization may also be revealed, for instance when outgroups are perceived as irrelevant to the fulfillment of one’s goals [21, 22].…”

Dehumanization as an Ethical Issue in the Health Services Sector

“…Research determined that participants have less dehumanization attitude toward correspondents from the same socio-economic status than they have toward those from different statuses (Leyens et al, 2001). Another study revealed that those from higher status groups have dehumanizing attitudes toward those from lower status; however, those from lower status groups do not share this attitude toward those from higher status groups (Capozza et al, 2012). Doctors' socio-economic statuses may cause them to dehumanize patients, especially those from lower socio-economic statuses.…”