The Ash Twins Blog

This interesting article by Nick Haslam presents a model of dehumanization:

Uniquely human (UH) characteristics define the boundary that separates humans from the  related category of animals, but humanness may also be understood noncomparatively as the features that are typical of or central to humans. These normative or fundamental characteristics might be referred to as human nature (HN)…

If there are two distinct senses of humanness, then two distinct forms of dehumanization should occur when the respective properties are denied to others… When UH characteristics are denied to others, they should in principle be seen as lacking in refinement, civility, moral sensibility, and higher cognition. They should therefore be perceived as coarse, uncultured, lacking in self-control, and unintelligent. Their behavior should be seen as less cognitively mediated than the behavior of others, and thus more driven by motives, appetites, and instincts. As UH characteristics are seen as later developing (Haslam et al., 2005), their denial may
be associated with a view of others as childlike, immature, or backward. Similarly, if UH characteristics are understood to have a moral dimension, people denied them should be seen as immoral or amoral (i.e., prone to violate the moral code or lacking it altogether).

Stated baldly, ifpeople are perceived as lacking what distinguishes humans from animals, they should be seen implicitly or explicitly as animal-like. This proposed “animalistic” form of dehumanization therefore resembles infra-humanization (Leyens et al., 2003) but applies
broadly to UH characteristics beyond secondary emotions, may involve explicit comparisons of others to animals, and may not be limited to intergroup contexts. UH characteristics might be denied in interpersonal (self vs. other) comparisons and relationships, rather than on the basis of outgroup membership.

When HN is denied to others, they should be seen as lacking in emotionality, warmth, cognitive openness, individual agency, and, because HN is essentialized,
depth. As others are seen as lacking emotion and warmth they will be perceived as inert and cold. Denying them cognitive openness (e.g., curiosity, flexibility) will give them the appearance of rigidity, and denying them individual agency represents them as interchangeable (fungible) and passive, their behavior caused rather than propelled by personal will. Because they are denied deep-seated characteristics, people denied HN should be represented in ways that emphasize relatively superficial attributes.

This combination of attributed characteristics-inertness, coldness, rigidity, fungibility, and lack of agency-represents a view of others as object- or automaton-like. This form of dehumanization can therefore be described as mechanistic. The animalistic form ofdehumanization rests on a direct contrast between humans and animals, but in the mechanistic form, although the relevant sense of humanness is noncomparative (HN), humans can be contrasted with machines. The shared, typical, or core properties of humanness are also those that distinguish us from automata.

This trichotomy of humans, animals, and machines has been elaborated in previous work (Sheehan & Sosna, 1991; Wolfe, 1993), but not explicitly in work on dehumanization. In early support for its relevance, Loughnan and Haslam (2005) used the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to demonstrate that social categories may be differentially associated with the two senses of humanness, and with animals or automata, in the manner proposed. We predicted that artists would be seen as imaginative and spirited (high HN) but lacking restraint and civility (low UH), and hence implicitly associated with animals, whereas businesspeople would be seen as rational and self-controlled (high UH) but unemotional, hardhearted, and conforming (low HN), and hence associated with automata. As predicted, the GNAT indicated that artists were associated with HN traits more than UH traits and with animal-related more than automaton-related stimuli. In contrast, businesspeople were associated more strongly with automata and UH traits. Finally, UH traits were less associated with animals than with automata, and HN traits less with automata than with animals. By implication, social groups that are not normally objects of prejudice may be subtly dehumanized in two distinct ways, implicitly likened to unrefined animals or soulless machines.