Intergroup preference, not dehumanization, explains social biases in emotion attribution

Enock, Florence; Tipper, Steven P.; Over, Harriet

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104865

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(154 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, there is a substantial body of empirical research suggesting that we do attribute mental states, traits, and emotions to outgroup members. Whereas outgroup members might be thought of as lacking socially desirable human qualities such as warmth and rationality, they are often viewed as possessing undesirable human qualities, such as arrogance, spite, and jealousy to a greater extent than do the ingroup (Enock, Flavell, et al, 2021; Enock, Tipper, et al, 2021; Over, 2021a, 2021b). These findings accord with research on stereotype content showing that outgroups are often thought of as possessing negative yet uniquely human characteristics, such as being devious, deceptive, and cunning (Over, 2021b).…”

Section: What Is Pdt?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual dehumanization theory: A critique.

Over¹,

Cook²

2023

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to perceptual dehumanization theory (PDT) is the claim that full engagement of a putative module for the visual analysis of faces is necessary in order to recognize the humanity or personhood of observed individuals. According to this view, the faces of outgroup members do not engage domain-specific face processing fully or typically and are instead processed in a manner akin to how the brain processes objects. Consequently, outgroup members are attributed less humanity than ingroup members. To the extent that groups are perceptually dehumanized, they are hypothesized to be vulnerable to harm. In our article, we challenge several of the fundamental assumptions underlying this theory and question the empirical evidence in its favor. We begin by illustrating the extent to which the existence of domain-specific face processing is contested within the vision science literature. Next, we interrogate empirical evidence that appears to support PDT and suggest that alternative explanations for prominent findings in the field are more likely. In the closing sections of the article, we reflect on the broader logic of the theory and highlight some underlying inconsistencies.

show abstract

Section: What Is Pdt?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual dehumanization theory: A critique.

Over¹,

Cook²

2023

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The assumption is supported by research showing that people attribute more human emotions (or “secondary emotions,” referring mostly to sentiment) to ingroups than to outgroups, whom they deprive from this human essence (e.g., Leyens et al, 2001 , 2003 ; Cortes et al, 2005 ). In recent years, research has expanded to study infra-humanisation with respect to a variety of groups and characteristics, including age ( Boudjemadi et al, 2017 ), nationality ( Davies et al, 2018 ), or religion ( Banton et al, 2020 ), finding it to apply to a large set of possible categories (but see Enock et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animalistic dehumanisation as a social influence strategy

Quiamzade

Lalot

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of animalistic dehumanisation has been extensively studied in social psychology, but mostly as an intergroup relations tool used to justify the mistreatment of an outgroup. Surprisingly, however, dehumanisation has not been approached as an influence strategy to convince the ingroup to mistreat an outgroup. In the present article, we investigate these possible influence effects. We propose that a message depicting an outgroup in negative animalised terms would lead to lasting unfavourable outgroup attitudes because the animal essence conveyed through the message would immunise ingroup members against subsequent counterinfluence attempts. In one experimental study we compared the effect of three influence messages depicting a despised outgroup (Roma beggars) in negative animalised vs. negative humanised vs. positive humanised terms, followed by a counterpropaganda message advocating for Roma beggars’ rights. Results show that the animalisation message leads to a lasting animalised perception of the outgroup (eliciting disgust and repugnancy) that resists exposure to the counterpropaganda positive message. In contrast, the negative humanisation message provokes a brief negative perception of the group (pre-counterpropaganda) that disappears after exposure to the counterpropaganda. The animalisation message also leads to more negative attitudes and discriminatory behavioural intentions towards Roma beggars expressed after the counterpropaganda message (i.e., discrimination in the workplace, hiring intentions, and social proximity), whilst the negative humanisation message does not, showing no difference with the positive humanisation message. These results suggest that animalistic dehumanisation indeed acts as an influence strategy, immunising targets against subsequent counterpropaganda attempts. We discuss implications in the light of essentialisation, forms of dehumanisation and group status, and current non-discriminatory norms.

show abstract

“…However, more recent research has found that perspective taking and other explicit appeals to increase interracial prosociality can fall short in two ways (see Zaki & Cikara, 2015 for review). First, outgroup members' mental complexity is often misunderstood or neglected, both of which may promote reliance on stereotypes about their traits, goals, intentions, emotions, and behaviors (Enock et al, 2021;Leyens et al, 2000;Park & Judd, 1990;Rothbart & Taylor, 1992).…”

Section: Racial Outgroup Membermentioning

confidence: 99%

Brief Mindfulness Instruction Predicts Anonymous Prosocial Helping of an Ostracized Racial Outgroup Member

Berry

Wall²,

Cairo³

et al. 2023

Mindfulness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Training in mindfulness has been found to enhance interpersonal benefits (e.g., gratitude, forgiveness, empathy, compassion). Here, we ask if these interpersonal benefits extend to intergroup contexts. Method:Two experiments (n = 256) tested whether brief mindfulness instruction predicted higher prosocial helping behavior toward an ostracized racial outgroup member. Results:In Study 1, mindfulness instruction, relative to active and inactive controls, predicted higher helping behavior toward an ostracized racial outgroup member in a private (but not in a public) context. State empathic concern did not mediate the relationship between mindfulness training and private helping behavior. In Study 2, which involved greater anonymity, mindfulness instruction predicted higher private and public helping behavior toward an ostracized racial outgroup member. Empathic concern statistically mediated the relationship between mindfulness training and public, but not private, helping.Conclusions: Together these two studies indicate that, in a relatively anonymous context, brief mindfulness instruction predicts higher empathic concern and helping behavior toward an ostracized racial outgroup member. Discussion focuses on implications and limitations of mindfulness for intergroup prosociality.

show abstract

Intergroup preference, not dehumanization, explains social biases in emotion attribution

Cited by 19 publications

References 55 publications

Perceptual dehumanization theory: A critique.

Perceptual dehumanization theory: A critique.

Animalistic dehumanisation as a social influence strategy

Brief Mindfulness Instruction Predicts Anonymous Prosocial Helping of an Ostracized Racial Outgroup Member

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About