On low-status groups : pervasiveness and boundaries of dehumanisation

Miranda, Mariana Pires

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.12/3379

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
TES MIRA1.pdf		2.33 MB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Miranda, Mariana Pires

Advisor(s)

Pereira, Maria Gouveia

Vaes, Jeroen

Abstract(s)

ABSTRACT: Humanness is an important social dimension that groups strive for (Bain, Vaes, & Leyens, 2014; Haslam, 2006; Leyens, Demoulin, Vaes, Gaunt, & Paladino, 2007). A first research program designed by Leyens and colleagues (2000) has shown that ingroup members tended to consider themselves as uniquely human while outgroups fell short on that dimension. Importantly, dehumanization was thought to be dependent on ethnocentric motives and, as such, could be observed in both low and high status groups (Leyens et al., 2003). Whereas an initial set of data confirmed this assumption (Demoulin et al., 2005; Leyens et al., 2001; Paladino et al., 2002; Paladino & Vaes, 2009), this assumption has come under increased pressure as new data seem to suggest that, at least in some situations, group status is significantly linked to dehumanisation (Cappozza, Andrighetto, Di Bernardo, & Falvo, 2012; Harris & Fiske, 2006; Iatridis, 2013; Jones-Lumby & Haslam, 2005; Vaes & Paladino, 2010). To test the role of intergroup status on the attribution of uniquely human features to ingroups and outgroups, a first research paper aimed at experimentally varying the social perception of an ingroup and an outgroup on competence – as a proxy of status – and warmth (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Furthermore, we have done so in an otherwise minimal intergroup situation to control for possible confounding variables. Results confirmed that only members of groups high on competence dehumanised the outgroup. Interestingly, this moderation was observed on the attribution of uniquely human emotions, an operationalisation of humanness that is thought to be less influenced by intergroup differences on socio-structural variables (Leyens, 2009). In the two subsequent papers we focus on the perspective of low status groups explaining when and why low status groups sometimes do and other times do not dehumanize others. We started to explore the role of outgroup identification, confirming in a correlational study with Gypsy minority members that those who wish to assimilate dehumanise the majority outgroup less (Study 1). Studies 2 and 3, conducted with immigrants in Portugal and Italy, confirmed that this result is extendable to an acculturation framework based on contact and culture adoption. Again, immigrants who preferred to assimilate with the host culture tended to dehumanize the majority group less. As such, we identified a first source of variability in dehumanization processes perpetrated by low-status groups. Subsequently, the pervasiveness of intergroup dehumanisation was tested disentangling group status and power. As such, power was manipulated among low status groups in a laboratory (Study 1) and in a natural setting (Study 2). Results confirmed that when low status groups were given some control on the outcome’s of a high status outgroup (i.e. power) they dehumanise the members of this outgroup to a greater extent than when they were given no control at all. Results are discussed in terms of the extent to which ethnocentric motives underlie dehumanisation and future research is outlined. Power.