Humans, animals and machines: understanding the dehumanization process
Keywords:
dehumanization, animalistic dehumanization, mechanistic dehumanization, intergroup relations, prejudiceAbstract
The study of dehumanization began just over a decade. Since then many studies have shown how people perceive outgroup members as less human than ingroup members. In the present work, we firstly analyze how people define humanity is and how we consequently understand what dehumanization is. Secondly, we will present the two main forms of dehumanization: Animalistic (perceiving others as if they were animals) and mechanistic (perceiving others as robots and machines). Thirdly, the main measures of dehumanization as well as the main approaches in the area are presented: the attribute- and the metaphor-based dehumanization. Finally, we examine the main consequences of dehumanization and its impact on intergroup and interpersonal relationships.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
References
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
Downloads
Published
2017-12-31
How to Cite
Martínez, R., Moya, M., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2017). Humans, animals and machines: understanding the dehumanization process. Escritos De Psicología - Psychological Writings, 10(3), 178–189. Retrieved from https://revistas.uma.es/index.php/espsi/article/view/10052
Issue
Section
Escritos de Psicología
License
All contents published in Escritos de Psicología are protected under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. All about this license is available in the following link: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0>
Users can copy, use, redistribute, share and exhibit publicly as long as:
- The original source and authorship of the material are cited (Journal, Publisher and URL of the work).
- It is not used for comercial purposes.
- The existence of the license and its especifications are mentioned.
There are two sets of authors’ rights: moral and property rights. Moral rights are perpetual prerogatives, unrenounceable, not-transferable, unalienable, imprescriptible and inembargable. According to authors’ rights legislation, Escritos de Psicología recognizes and respects authors moral rights, as well as the ownership of property rights. The property rights are referred to the benefits that are gained by the use or the dissemination of works. Escritos de Psicología is published in an open access form and it is exclusively licenced by any means for doing or authorising distribution, dissemination, reproduction, , adaptation, translation or arrangement of works.
Authors are responsable for obtaining the necessary permission to use copyrighted images.
10.png)
ESCRITOS DE PSICOLOGÍA por 