Humanos, animales y máquinas: entendiendo el proceso de deshumanización
Palabras clave:
deshumanización, nfrahumanización, animalización, mecanización, relaciones intergrupales, prejuicioResumen
El estudio de la deshumanización comenzó hace poco más de una década. Desde entonces, numerosos estudios han puesto de manifiesto cómo las personas perciben a los miembros del exogrupo de forma menos humana que a los miembros del endogrupo. En este trabajo, se analiza en primer lugar cómo las personas definen la humanidad y cómo podemos, por tanto, entender qué es la deshumanización. En segundo lugar, se exponen las dos formas principales de deshumanizar: la animalización (percibir a los demás como si fuesen animales) y la mecanización (percibir a los demás como si fuesen robots y máquinas). En tercer lugar, se presentan las principales medidas de deshumanización así como los principales enfoques en el área: el enfoque de los rasgos y el enfoque de la metáfora. Por último, se examinan las principales consecuencias de la deshumanización y su impacto en las relaciones intergrupales e interpersonales.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Métricas
Cargando métricas ...
Citas
1. Allport, G. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2. Bain, P. G., Park, J., Kwok, C., y Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 789-805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340415
3. Bastian B., y Haslam, N. (2010).Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
4. Bastian, B., Laham, S., Wilson, S., Haslam, N. y Koval, P. (2011). Blaming, praising and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 469-483. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X521383
5. Bastian, B., y Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing Dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
6. Boccato, G., Cortes, B. P., Demoulin, S., y Leyens, J. Ph. (2007). The automaticity of infrahumanisation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 987–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.412
7. Castano, E., y Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90, 804-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804
8. Cehajic, S., Brown, R., y Gonzalez, R. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanisation as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes &Intergroup Relations, 12, 715–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347727
9. Cuddy, A. J. C., Rock, M. S., y Norton, M. I. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207071344
10. Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., y Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214
11. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in Social Psychology. Nueva York: Wiley.
12. Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L, Williams, M. J., y Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanisation, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292
13. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., y Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
14. Greenwald, A. G., y Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3
15. Haque, O. S., y Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429706
16. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
17. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., y Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
18. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., y Bain, P. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645
19. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., y Sun, P. (2011). Beastly: What makes animal metaphors offensive?. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11407168
20. Haslam, N., y Loughnan, S. (2012). Dehumanization and prejudice. En J. Dixon y M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice (pp. 89-104). London: Psychology Press.
21. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual review of psychology, 65, 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
22. Jackson, L. E., & Gaertner, L. (2010).Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 238-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20344
23. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109, 901-931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
24. Leidner, B., Castano, E. & Ginges, J. (2013).Dehumanization, Retributive and Restorative Justice, and Aggressive Versus Diplomatic Intergroup Conflict Resolution Strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472208
25. Leyens, J.-Ph., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., y Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Journal of Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x
26. Leyens, J. Ph., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez, R. T., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, A. P., & Gaunt,R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The role of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
27. Leyens, J-Ph., Rodriguez, A. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., y Vaes, J. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50
28. Loughnan, S., y Haslam, N. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
29. Loughnan, S., y Haslam, N., y Kashima, Y. (2009).Understanding the relationship between attitude-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347726
30. Martínez, R., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., y Moya, M. (2012). Are they animals or machines? Measuring dehumanization. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 1110-1122. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39401
31. Martínez, R., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Vaes, J. (2015). Interacting with dehumanized others? Only if they are objectified. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612219
32. Nosek, B., y Banaji, M. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
33. Paladino, P. M., Leyens, J. Ph., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Gaunt, R., y Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions to the ingroup and the outgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005002539
34. Pereira, C., Vala, J. & Leyens, J.-Ph. (2009). From infra-humanization to discrimination: The mediation of symbolic threat needs egalitarian norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 336-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.010
35. Rodriguez-Perez, A., Delgado-Rodriguez, N., Betancor-Rodriguez, V., Leyens, J-Ph., y Vaes, J. (2011). Infra-humanisation of outgroups throughout the world. The role of similarity, intergroup friendship, knowledge of the outgroup, and status. Anales de Psicología, 27, 679–687.
36. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734-746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401
37. Saminaden, A., Loughnan, S., & Haslam, N. (2010). Afterimages of savages: Implicit associations between ‘primitives’, animals and children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X415293
38. Stephan, W. G. (1983) Intergroup relations. En D. Perlman y P. Cozby. Social Psychology (pp. 414–41). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
39. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J.-Ph., y Giovanazzi, A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1016
40. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Leyens, J-Ph. (2002). The lost e-mail: Prosocial reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 521-534. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602321149867
41. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Leyens, J-Ph. (2004). Perspective taking in an intergroup context and the use of uniquely human emotions: Drawing an E on your forehead. International Review of Social Psychology, 17, 5–26.
42. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Magagnotti, C. (2011). The human message in politics: The impact of emotional slogans on subtle conformity. Journal of Social Psychology. 151, 162-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903510829
43. Vaes, J., Leyens, J-Ph., Paladino, M. P., y Pires Miranda, M. (2012).We are human, they are not: driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 64-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
44. Viki, G.T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 325-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006
45. Viki, G. T., Winchester, L., Titshall, L., Chisango, T., Pina, A., y Russell, R. (2006). Beyond secondary emotions: the infrahumanization of outgroups using human-related and animal-related words. Social Cognition, 24, 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.753
2. Bain, P. G., Park, J., Kwok, C., y Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 789-805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340415
3. Bastian B., y Haslam, N. (2010).Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
4. Bastian, B., Laham, S., Wilson, S., Haslam, N. y Koval, P. (2011). Blaming, praising and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 469-483. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X521383
5. Bastian, B., y Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing Dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
6. Boccato, G., Cortes, B. P., Demoulin, S., y Leyens, J. Ph. (2007). The automaticity of infrahumanisation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 987–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.412
7. Castano, E., y Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90, 804-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804
8. Cehajic, S., Brown, R., y Gonzalez, R. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanisation as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes &Intergroup Relations, 12, 715–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347727
9. Cuddy, A. J. C., Rock, M. S., y Norton, M. I. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207071344
10. Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., y Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214
11. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in Social Psychology. Nueva York: Wiley.
12. Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L, Williams, M. J., y Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanisation, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292
13. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., y Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
14. Greenwald, A. G., y Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3
15. Haque, O. S., y Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429706
16. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
17. Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., y Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
18. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., y Bain, P. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645
19. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., y Sun, P. (2011). Beastly: What makes animal metaphors offensive?. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11407168
20. Haslam, N., y Loughnan, S. (2012). Dehumanization and prejudice. En J. Dixon y M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice (pp. 89-104). London: Psychology Press.
21. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual review of psychology, 65, 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
22. Jackson, L. E., & Gaertner, L. (2010).Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 238-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20344
23. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109, 901-931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
24. Leidner, B., Castano, E. & Ginges, J. (2013).Dehumanization, Retributive and Restorative Justice, and Aggressive Versus Diplomatic Intergroup Conflict Resolution Strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472208
25. Leyens, J.-Ph., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., y Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Journal of Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x
26. Leyens, J. Ph., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez, R. T., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, A. P., & Gaunt,R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The role of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
27. Leyens, J-Ph., Rodriguez, A. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., y Vaes, J. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50
28. Loughnan, S., y Haslam, N. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
29. Loughnan, S., y Haslam, N., y Kashima, Y. (2009).Understanding the relationship between attitude-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 747–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347726
30. Martínez, R., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., y Moya, M. (2012). Are they animals or machines? Measuring dehumanization. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 1110-1122. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39401
31. Martínez, R., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Vaes, J. (2015). Interacting with dehumanized others? Only if they are objectified. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612219
32. Nosek, B., y Banaji, M. (2001). The Go/No-Go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
33. Paladino, P. M., Leyens, J. Ph., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Gaunt, R., y Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions to the ingroup and the outgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005002539
34. Pereira, C., Vala, J. & Leyens, J.-Ph. (2009). From infra-humanization to discrimination: The mediation of symbolic threat needs egalitarian norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 336-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.010
35. Rodriguez-Perez, A., Delgado-Rodriguez, N., Betancor-Rodriguez, V., Leyens, J-Ph., y Vaes, J. (2011). Infra-humanisation of outgroups throughout the world. The role of similarity, intergroup friendship, knowledge of the outgroup, and status. Anales de Psicología, 27, 679–687.
36. Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734-746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212436401
37. Saminaden, A., Loughnan, S., & Haslam, N. (2010). Afterimages of savages: Implicit associations between ‘primitives’, animals and children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X415293
38. Stephan, W. G. (1983) Intergroup relations. En D. Perlman y P. Cozby. Social Psychology (pp. 414–41). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
39. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J.-Ph., y Giovanazzi, A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1016
40. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Leyens, J-Ph. (2002). The lost e-mail: Prosocial reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 521-534. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602321149867
41. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Leyens, J-Ph. (2004). Perspective taking in an intergroup context and the use of uniquely human emotions: Drawing an E on your forehead. International Review of Social Psychology, 17, 5–26.
42. Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., y Magagnotti, C. (2011). The human message in politics: The impact of emotional slogans on subtle conformity. Journal of Social Psychology. 151, 162-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903510829
43. Vaes, J., Leyens, J-Ph., Paladino, M. P., y Pires Miranda, M. (2012).We are human, they are not: driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 64-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
44. Viki, G.T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 325-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006
45. Viki, G. T., Winchester, L., Titshall, L., Chisango, T., Pina, A., y Russell, R. (2006). Beyond secondary emotions: the infrahumanization of outgroups using human-related and animal-related words. Social Cognition, 24, 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.753
Descargas
Publicado
2017-12-31
Cómo citar
Martínez, R., Moya, M., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2017). Humanos, animales y máquinas: entendiendo el proceso de deshumanización. Escritos De Psicología - Psychological Writings, 10(3), 178–189. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.uma.es/index.php/espsi/article/view/10052
Número
Sección
Escritos de Psicología
Licencia
Todos los contenidos publicados en Escritos de Psicología están sujetos a la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimento-NoComercia-Compartirigual 4.0 cuyo texto completo puede consultar en <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0>
Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que:
- Se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra).
- No se usen para fines comerciales.
- Se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
Los derechos de autor son de dos clases: morales y patrimoniales. Los derechos morales son prerrogativas perpetuas, irrenunciables, intransferibles, inalienables, inembargables e imprescriptibles. De acuerdo con la legislación de derechos de autor, Escritos de Psicología reconoce y respeta el derecho moral de los autores/as, así como la titularidad del derecho patrimonial. Los derechos patrimoniales, se refieren a los beneficios que se obtienen por el uso o divulgación de las obras. Escritos de Psicología se publica en open access y queda autorizada en exclusiva para realizar u autorizar por cualquier medio el uso, distribución, divulgación, reproducción, adaptación, traducción o transformación de la obra.
Es responsabilidad de los autores/as obtener los permisos necesarios de las imágenes que están sujetas a derechos de autor.
10.png)
ESCRITOS DE PSICOLOGÍA por 