Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug

Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges

Despite our many differences, one superordinate category we all belong to is 'humans'. To strip away or overlook others' humanity, then, is to mark them as 'other' and, typically, 'less than'. We review growing evidence revealing how and why we subtly disregard the humanity of those around us. We then highlight new research suggesting that we continue to blatantly dehumanize certain groups, overtly likening them to animals, with important implications for intergroup hostility. We discuss advances in understanding the experience of being dehumanized and novel interventions to mitigate dehumanization, address the conceptual boundaries of dehumanization, and consider recent accounts challenging the importance of dehumanization and its role in intergroup violence. Finally, we present an agenda of outstanding questions to propel dehumanization research forward.

The limited importance of dehumanization in collective violence

Perpetrators of collective violence allegedly dehumanize their victims. Psychologists often operationalize dehumanization as a social-cognitive process that turns people into beings whose thoughts, feelings, and relationships are of no concern to the perpetrators. The theory is that this process is an essential mechanism in intergroup violence. But a growing number of researchers from a variety of disciplines are pointing out the theoretical and empirical limitations of the dehumanization thesis. Some psychologists go so far as to argue that the thesis is mistaken. As this review shows, the explanatory value of 'dehumanization' is now in doubt. Whatever its intuitive appeal, the psychological concept of dehumanization might do more to distort than illuminate the history of collective violence.