Don't worry, they get the idea: instructions have no impact on dehumanization ratings on the Ascent of Human Scale

A common method for assessing blatant dehumanization asks participants to rate "how evolved" they think members of various social groups are using the Ascent of Human scale (AOH) that transitions in stages from a crawling ape to a fully upright modern human. However, little is known about how task instructions affect participant ratings. In this pre-registered study, participants saw alternative forms of instruction including the traditional instructions emphasizing "evolution", a prompt without any reference to evolution, and a prompt that clearly explained that the scale assesses dehumanization. Instruction type had no effect on dehumanization ratings on the AOH scale. These results support the idea that the AOH scale is a robust means of assessing blatant dehumanization.

Salience Matters: Filler groups on the ascent of human scale impact ratings for target groups

Researchers using the ascent of human scale (AOH) to study dehumanization typically include filler groups in addition to the main comparator groups, to hide the true intent of the study. However, there is little work examining the impact of filler group choice on dehumanization ratings between groups of interest. Across two studies (including one pre-registered study) we manipulated the salience of a target out-group (i.e., the extent to which the group stood out) by embedding it within lists of other groups. By comparing AOH ratings across three conditions in which the target out-group was either high salience, medium salience, or low salience, we were able to determine the effects of target out-group salience on dehumanization. In study 1, we included participants' in-group (Canadian) in the list, and in study 2, we did not include participants in-group in the list. Results from study 1 showed that group salience had no impact on AOH ratings for the out-group when the participant in-group was included in the list. However, in study 2, when participant in-group was removed from the list, ratings for the out-group in the high salience condition were significantly lower than both the medium and low salience conditions. Implications for both theoretical and methodological issues in investigations using the AOH scale are discussed.

Political (Meta-)Dehumanization in Mental Representations: Divergent Emphases in the Minds of Liberals Versus Conservatives

We conducted two reverse-correlation studies, as well as two pilot studies reported in the online supplement (total N = 1,411), on the topics of (a) whether liberals and conservatives differ in the types of dehumanization that they cognitively emphasize when mentally representing one another, and if so, (b) whether liberals and conservatives are sensitive to how they are represented in the minds of political outgroup members. Results suggest that partisans indeed differ in the types of dehumanization that they cognitively emphasize when mentally representing one another: whereas conservatives' dehumanization of liberals emphasizes immaturity (vs. savagery), liberals' dehumanization of conservatives more strongly emphasizes savagery (vs. immaturity). In addition, results suggest that partisans may be sensitive to how they are represented. That is, partisans' meta-representations-their representations of how the outgroup represents the ingroup-appear to accurately index the relative emphases of these two dimensions in the minds of political outgroup members.

All human social groups are human, but some are more human than others: A comprehensive investigation of the implicit association of "Human" to US racial/ethnic groups

All human groups are equally human, but are they automatically represented as such? Harnessing data from 61,377 participants across 13 experiments (six primary and seven supplemental), a sharp dissociation between implicit and explicit measures emerged. Despite explicitly affirming the equal humanity of all racial/ethnic groups, White participants consistently associated Human (relative to Animal) more with White than Black, Hispanic, and Asian groups on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; experiments 1-4). This effect emerged across diverse representations of Animal that varied in valence (pets, farm animals, wild animals, and vermin; experiments 1-2). Non-White participants showed no such Human=Own Group bias (e.g., Black participants on a White-Black/Human-Animal IAT). However, when the test included two outgroups (e.g., Asian participants on a White-Black/Human-Animal IAT), non-White participants displayed Human=White associations. The overall effect was largely invariant across demographic variations in age, religion, and education but did vary by political ideology and gender, with self-identified conservatives and men displaying stronger Human=White associations (experiment 3). Using a variance decomposition method, experiment 4 showed that the Human=White effect cannot be attributed to valence alone; the semantic meaning of Human and Animal accounted for a unique proportion of variance. Similarly, the effect persisted even when Human was contrasted with positive attributes (e.g., God, Gods, and Dessert; experiment 5a). Experiments 5a-b clarified the primacy of Human=White rather than Animal=Black associations. Together, these experiments document a factually erroneous but robust Human=Own Group implicit stereotype among US White participants (and globally), with suggestive evidence of its presence in other socially dominant groups.

“Am I not human?”: Reasserting humanness in response to group-based dehumanization

Research on group dehumanization has focused largely on the perpetrators of dehumanization or on its negative emotional and cognitive effects on targets. We theorized that people would also reassert their humanness in response to dehumanizing portrayals of their group. Experiment 1 showed that Black individuals responded to a dehumanizing representation of their racial group by emphasizing their experience of more complex, uniquely human emotions versus emotions more associated with other animals. Experiment 2 and a supplemental experiment showed that Black, but not White, individuals responded to group-based dehumanization by depicting more complex self-portrayals. Taken together, these studies begin to illustrate that targets of group-based dehumanization are not simply passive victims but respond actively, resisting negative representations of their group by reasserting their humanness.

Perceiving People With Physical Disabilities as Overcoming Adversity Warps Mind Perception

Across six studies, we tested how people with physical disabilities were ascribed mental faculties. People with physical disabilities were seen as more capable of mental agency (e.g., thinking), but not more capable of experience (e.g., pain), compared to nondisabled people (Study 1). People with physical disabilities were also seen as more capable of supernatural mental agency (e.g., seeing the future, reading minds; Study 2). Believing that people with physical disabilities were more mentally agentic than nondisabled people was unrelated to Beliefs in a Just World (Study 3) but was related to beliefs about hardship (Study 4). Narratives of overcoming adversity, common in portrayals of the disabled community, increased the perceived mental sophistication of people with physical disabilities (Study 5). Finally, hardship narratives also affected helping behavior toward people with physical disabilities (Study 6). Thus, hardship stories surrounding individuals with disabilities may contribute to beliefs that they have particularly sophisticated minds.

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.

Bodies and Minds: Heavier Weight Targets Are De-Mentalized as Lacking in Mental Agency

Five experiments investigate the hypothesis that heavier weight individuals are denied mental agency (i.e., higher order cognitive and intentional capacities), but not experience (e.g., emotional and sensory capacities), relative to average weight individuals. Across studies, we find that as targets increase in weight, they are denied mental agency; however, target weight has no reliable influence on ascriptions of experience (Studies 1a-2b). Furthermore, the de-mentalization of heavier weight targets was associated with both disgust and beliefs about targets' physical agency (Study 3). Finally, de-mentalization affected role assignments. Heavier weight targets were rated as helpful for roles requiring experiential but not mentally agentic faculties (Study 4). Heavier weight targets were also less likely than chance to be categorized into a career when it was described as requiring mental agency (versus experience; Study 5). These findings suggest novel insights into past work on weight stigma, wherein discrimination often occurs in domains requiring mental agency.

Blatant Dehumanization of People with Obesity

OBJECTIVE

Stigmatization of obesity is common, but whether this stigma extends to people with obesity also being considered less human than individuals without obesity has not been examined. This study investigated whether people with obesity are blatantly dehumanized (i.e., explicitly considered to be less human and more animallike) and whether this predicts obesity discrimination.

METHODS

In four online studies (total N = 1,506) with American, British, and Indian participants, evidence for blatant dehumanization of people with obesity was examined. Whether blatant dehumanization of people with obesity was moderated by BMI and to what extent blatant dehumanization predicted support for weight discrimination were also investigated.

RESULTS

In all studies, participants believed that people with obesity were less evolved and less human than people without obesity. Although blatant dehumanization of people with obesity was most pronounced among thinner participants, the belief that people with obesity were less human was also observed among participants with class I obesity. Finally, dehumanization was predictive of support for policies that discriminate against people living with obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first evidence that people with obesity are blatantly dehumanized. This tendency to consider people with obesity as less human reveals the level of obesity stigma and may facilitate and/or justify weight discrimination.