This article addresses the role of perceived (reduced) humanity and group membership of others in producing linguistic discrimination. Study 1 assessed the effects of these factors on a subtle measure of linguistic discrimination, namely, linguistic abstraction. Study 2 considered the explicit level of verbal abuse. Results highlighted that target’s reduced humanity led to enhanced linguistic discrimination toward the target, while group membership moderated this effect in specific conditions. Overall, the evidence of this set of studies sheds light on the role of humanity and its interplay with social categorization on discrimination outcomes.
AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2012). Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple categorisation and human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 875-882. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1902
2.
AllportG. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BanduraA. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101-118. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322
4.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126
5.
CostelloK.HodsonG. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal-human similarity in promoting immigrant dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 3-22. doi:10.1177/1368430209347725
6.
CostelloK.HodsonG. (2011). Social dominance-based threat reactions to immigrants in need of assistance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 220-231. doi:10.1002/ejsp.769
7.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
8.
FrancoF. M.MaassA. (1999). Intentional control over prejudice: When the choice of the measure matters. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 469-477. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199906)29:4<469::AID-EJSP938>3.0.CO;2-S
9.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
10.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
11.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252-264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003
12.
HaslamN.LoughnanS.KashimaY.BainP. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 55-85). London, England: Psychology Press. doi:10.1080/10463280801981645
13.
HaslamN.LoughnanS.SunP. (2011). Beastly: What makes animal metaphors offensive?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 311-325. doi:10.1177/0261927X11407168
14.
HodsonG.MacInnisC. C.CostelloK. (2013). (Over)valuing “humanness” as an aggravator of intergroup prejudices and discrimination. In BainP.VaesJ.LeyensJ. Ph. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanisation (pp. 86-110). London, England: Psychology Press.
15.
HutterR. R. C.CrispR. J. (2005). The composition of category conjunctions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 647-657. doi:10.1177/0146167204271575
16.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
17.
LeachE. R. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories and verbal abuse. In LennebergE. H. (Ed.), New directions in the study of language (pp. 23-63). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
LeyensJ. Ph.PaladinoM. P.RodríguezR. T.VaesJ.DemoulinS.RodríguezA. P.GauntR. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The role of secondary emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186-197. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402
19.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.KashimaY. (2009). Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 747-762. doi:10.1177/1368430209347726
20.
MaassA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotypes-perpetuation through language. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79-121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60272-5
21.
MaassA.CeccarelliR.RudinS. (1996). Ingroup bias: Evidence for in-group protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512-526. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
22.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180308
23.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2012). From the individual to the group: The enhancement of linguistic bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 36-40. doi:10.1002/ejsp.856
24.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 596-607. doi:10.1177/0146167213479404
25.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.PratiF.RubiniM. (2014). Badly off or better off than them? The impact of relative deprivation and relative gratification on intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 248-264. doi:10/1037/a0036704
26.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2008). Linguistic discrimination in minimal groups: The impact of status differentials. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 140-154. doi:10.1177/0261927X07313652
27.
MoscatelliS.RubiniM. (2011). The impact of group entitativity on linguistic discrimination: Ingroup favouritism and outgroup derogation in the explanation of negative outcome allocations. Social Psychology, 42, 292-299. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000071
28.
OpotowS. (1990). Deterring moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 173-182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
29.
PereiraC.ValaJ.LeyensJ. Ph. (2009). From infra-humanization to discrimination: The mediation of symbolic threat needs egalitarian norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 336-344. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.10.010
30.
PratiF.MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2014). Reducing linguistic outgroup derogation: A matter of multiple categorization and intergroup contact. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31.
PratiF.VasiljevicM.CrispR. J.RubiniM. (in press). Some extended psychological benefits of challenging social stereotypes: Decreased dehumanization and a reduced reliance on heuristic thinking. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.
32.
RubiniM.MenegattiM. (2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 168-181. doi:10.1177/0261927X07313653
33.
RubiniM.MenegattiM. (2014). Hindering women’s careers in academia: Gender linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 632-650. doi:10.1177/0261927X14542436
34.
RubiniM.MenegattiM.MoscatelliS. (in press). Strategic use of language abstraction in achieving symbolic and practical goals: Evidence from intergroup, relational, organizational and political domains. European Review of Social Psychology.
35.
RubiniM.MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.PalmonariA. (2007). Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1203-1221. doi:10.1002/ejsp.391
36.
RubiniM.MoscatelliS.PalmonariA. (2007). Increasing group entitativity: Linguistic intergroup discrimination in the minimal groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 280-296. doi:10.1177/1368430207075156
37.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
38.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive functioning of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558
39.
SeminG. R.RubiniM. (1990). Unfolding the concept of person by verbal abuse. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 463-474. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200602
40.
StaubE. (1989). The roots of evil: Psychological and cultural origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
StruchN.SchwartzS. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364-373. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.364
42.
TajfelH. (1982). Instrumentality, identity, and social comparisons. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 483-507). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of social conflicts. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
44.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
45.
VaesJ.LeyensJ. Ph.PaladinoM. P.MirandaM. P. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 64-126). London, England: Psychology Press. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
46.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.CastelliL.LeyensJ. Ph.GiovannazziA. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infra-humanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016-1034. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1016
47.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.LeyensJ. Ph. (2004). Perspective taking in an intergroup context and the use of uniquely human emotions: Drawing an E on your forehead. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 17, 5-26.
48.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.LeyensJ. Ph. (2006). Priming uniquely human emotions and the in-group (but not the out-group) activates humanity concepts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 169-181. doi:10.1002/ejsp.279
49.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774-785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
50.
Van OudenhovenJ. P.de RaadB.Askevis-LeherpeauxF.BoskiP.BrunborgG. S.CarmonaC.. . . WoodsS. (2008). Terms of abuse as expression and reinforcement of cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 174-185. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.02.001
51.
WalzerM. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
52.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 331-372). London, England: Psychology Press. doi:10.1080/10463280701728302
53.
WohlM. J. A.HornseyM. J.BennettS. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 306-322. doi:10.1037/a0024838
54.
YzerbytV. Y.RocherS.SchadronG. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialist view of group perception. In SpearsR.EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (Eds.), The psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20-50). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
