We tested the novel hypothesis that the dehumanization of prisoners varies as a function of how soon they will be released from prison. Seven studies indicate that people ascribe soon-to-be-released prisoners greater mental sophistication than those with more time to serve, all other things being equal. Studies 3 to 6 indicate that these effects are mediated by perceptions that imprisonment has served the functions of rehabilitation, retribution, and future deterrence. Finally, Study 7 demonstrates that beliefs about rehabilitation and deterrence may be the most important in accounting for these effects. These findings indicate that the amount of time left on a prison sentence influences mind ascription to the incarcerated, an effect that has implications for our understanding of prisoner dehumanization.
AllenH. E.SimonsenC. E. (2001). Corrections in America. Prentice Hall.
2.
BastianB.DensonT. F.HaslamN. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLOS ONE, 8, Article e61842.
3.
BensonE. (2003). Rehabilitate or punish? Psychologists are not only providing treatment to prisoners; they’re also contributing to debate over the nature of prison itself. American Psychological Association, 34(7), 46.
4.
BinnallJ. M. (2008). Respecting beasts: The dehumanizing quality of the modern prison and unusual model for penal reform. Journal of Law and Policy, 17, 161–190.
5.
BuckelsE. E.TrapnellP. D. (2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 771–780.
6.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M.RobinsonP. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.
7.
CastanoE.Giner-SorollaR. (2006). Not quite human: Infra-humanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 804–818.
8.
DeskaJ. C.AlmarazS. M.HugenbergK. (2020). They’re all the same to me: Homogeneous groups are denied mind [Manuscript in preparation].
9.
DeskaJ. C.LloydE. P.HugenbergK. (2018). Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 75–94.
10.
EpleyN.AkalisS.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120.
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
12.
FincherK. M.KteilyN. S.BruneauE. G. (2018). Our humanity contains multitudes: Dehumanization is more than overlooking mental capacities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, E3329–E3330.
13.
FincherK. M.TetlockP. E. (2016). Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 131–146.
14.
FrithU.FrithC. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358, 459–473.
15.
GaltungJ. (1958). The social functions of a prison. Social Problems, 6, 127–140.
16.
Giner-SorollaR.LeidnerB.CastanoE. (2012). Dehumanization, demonization, and morality shifting: Paths to moral certainty in extremist violence. In HoggM. A.BlaylockD. L. (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. 165–182). Wiley-Blackwell.
17.
GoffP. A.EberhardtJ. L.WilliamsM. J.JacksonM. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306.
18.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619–619.
19.
HaneyC.ZimbardoP. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709–727.
20.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853.
21.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
22.
HaslamN.LoughnanS. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.
23.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29–29.
24.
KantI. (1965). The metaphysics of morals (LaddJ., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1797)
25.
KelmanH. G. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 25–61.
26.
KhalidS.DeskaJ. C.HugenbergK. (2016). The eyes are the windows to the mind: Direct eye gaze triggers the ascription of others’ minds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1666–1677.
27.
KiferM.HemmensC.StohrM. K. (2003). The goals of correction: Perspectives from the line. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 47–69.
28.
KozakM. N.MarshA. A.WegnerD. M. (2006). What do I think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555.
29.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901–931.
LeyensJ. P.DemoulinS.VaesJ.GauntR.PaladinoM. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172.
32.
LeyensJ. P.PaladinoP. M.Rodriguez-TorresR.VaesJ.DemoulinS.Rodriguez-PerezA.GauntR. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.
33.
MaozI.McCauleyC. (2008). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 93–116.
34.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22, 6–27.
35.
MyersB.GodwinD.LatterR.WinstanleyS. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 39–55.
36.
OsofskyM. J.BanduraA.ZimbardoP. G. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371–393.
37.
PowersK. E.WorshamA. L.FreemanJ. B.WheatleyT.HeathertonT. F. (2014). Social connection modulates perceptions of animacy. Psychological Science, 25, 1943–1948.
38.
RaiT. S.ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (2017). Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 8511–8516.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123–1128.
41.
TanF.XiaoE. (2018). Third-party punishment: Retribution or deterrence?Journal of Economic Psychology, 67, 34–46.
42.
TaylorS. E.RepettiR. L.SeemanT. (1997). Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin?Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 411–447.
43.
VaesJ.LeyensJ. P.Paola PaladinoM.Pires MirandaM. (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.
44.
VasiljevicM.VikiG. T. (2014). Dehumanization, moral disengagement, and public attitudes to crime and punishment. In BainP. G.VaesJ.LeyensJ.-P. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanization (pp. 129–146). Psychology Press.
45.
VikiG. T.FullertonI.RaggettH.TaitF.WiltshireS. (2012). The role of dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2349–2367.
46.
VikiG. T.OsgoodD.PhillipsS. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 325–328.
47.
WaytzA.MorewedgeC. K.EpleyN.MonteleoneG.GaoJ. H.CacioppoJ. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 410–435.
ZebelS.ZimmermannA.VikiG. T.DoosjeB. (2008). Dehumanization and guilt as distinct but related predictors of support for reparation policies. Political Psychology, 29, 193–219.
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.
