The investment model of close relationships has focused on satisfaction and dependence (as it pertains to viable alternatives) as important indicators of relationship commitment and success. In this review, I apply a dehumanization perspective to understanding why abusive relationships can increase dependence in the context of low relationship satisfaction. I will argue that abusive relationships are likely to continue when (a) perpetrators of abuse fail to self-dehumanize, but continue to dehumanize their partner; (b) victimized partners self-dehumanize, but fail to dehumanize the perpetrator of their abuse; and (c) third-party observers dehumanize victimized partners. This pattern of dehumanization facilitates dependence due to a tendency for (a) perpetrators and victims to justify ongoing abusive behavior, (b) victimized partners to view themselves as unworthy of available relationship alternatives or incapable of developing economic alternatives, and (c) third-party observers to downgrade the social value of victims. Finally, I will review potential precipitators of these dynamics, drawing from research on Dark Triad traits to understand the longer term conditions under which dehumanizing processes may contribute to high levels of dependence under conditions of low levels of satisfaction. Applying a dehumanization perspective to abusive behavior within close relationships opens new lines of inquiry and provides an alternative framework for understanding how people may become entrapped and vulnerable in relationships where maltreatment persists.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
2.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364
3.
BanduraA.UnderwoodB.FromsonM. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 253–269. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(75)90001-X
BastianB.DensonT. F.HaslamN. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PloS one, 8, e61842.
6.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107–113. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
7.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295–303. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
8.
BastianB.JettenJ.ChenH.RadkeH. R. M.HardingJ. F.FasoliF. (2013). Losing our humanity: The self-dehumanizing consequences of social ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 156–169. doi:10.1177/0146167212471205
9.
BastianB.JettenJ.HaslamN. (2014). An interpersonal perspective on dehumanization. In BainP.VaesJ.LeyensJ. P. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanization (pp. 205–224). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
BastianB.JettenJ.RadkeH. R. M. (2012). Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 486–491. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009
11.
BastianB.LahamS. M.WilsonS.HaslamN.KovalP. (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. doi:10.1348/014466610X521383
12.
BaughmanH. M.DearingS.GiammarcoE.VernonP. A. (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 571–575. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.020
13.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
14.
BaumeisterR. F.SmartL.BodenJ. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5
15.
BaumeisterR. F.StillwellA.WotmanS. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994–1005. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.994
16.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
17.
BlairR. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1–29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P
18.
BlairR. J. R.JonesL.ClarkF.SmithM. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack of responsiveness to distress cues?Psychophysiology, 34, 192–198. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02131.x
19.
CastanoE.Giner-SorollaR. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 804–818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804
20.
ČehajićS.BrownR.GonzálezR. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 715–729. doi:10.1177/1368430209347727
21.
DarleyJ. M.PittmanT. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11, 77–83.
23.
Di BernardoG. A.VisintinE. P.DazziC.CapozzaD. (2011, January). Patients’ dehumanization in health contexts.Poster session presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
24.
GoldsteinJ. H.DavisR. W.HermanD. (1975). Escalation of aggression: Experimental studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 162–170.
25.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619. doi:10.1126/science.1134475
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387
28.
GriffingS.RaginD. F.MorrisonS. M.SageR. E.MadryL.PrimmB. J. (2005). Reasons for returning to abusive relationships: Effects of prior victimization. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 341–348.
29.
GriffingS.RaginD. F.SageR. E.MadryL.BinghamL. E.PrimmB. J. (2002). Domestic violence survivors’ self-identified reasons for returning to abusive relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 306–319.
30.
HaqueO. S.WaytzA. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 176–186.
31.
HareR. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. doi:10.1177/0093854896023001004
32.
HareR. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
33.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
34.
HaslamN.BainP.DougeL.LeeM.BastianB. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
35.
HaslamN.BastianB.LahamS. M.LoughnanS. (2011). Morality and humanness. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. (Eds.), The psychology of good and evil (pp. 203–218). Washington, DC: APA Press.
36.
JonasonP. K.KavanaghP. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606–610.
37.
JonasonP. K.KrauseL. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532–537.
38.
JonasonP. K.LiN. P.BussD. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of the Dark Triad: Implications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 373–378. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.003
39.
JonasonP. K.LiN. P.TeicherE. A. (2010). Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as an agentic social style. Individual Differences Research, 8, 111–120.
40.
JonasonP. K.LiN. P.WebsterG. D.SchmittD. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18. doi:10.1002/per.698
41.
JonasonP. K.SchmittD. P. (2012). What have you done for me lately? Friendship-selection in the shadow of the dark triad traits. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 400–421. doi:10.1177/147470491201000303
42.
JonasonP. K.SlomskiS.PartykaJ. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008
43.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. doi:10.1037/a0019265
44.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 521–526. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023
45.
KelmanH. C. (1976). Violence without restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. In KrenG. M.RappoportL. H. (Eds.), Varieties of psychohistory (pp. 282–314). New York, NY: Springer.
46.
KouchakiM.DobsonK. S.WaytzA.KteilyN. S. (2018). The link between self-dehumanization and immoral behavior. Psychological Science, 29, 1234–1246. doi:10.1177/2F0956797618760784
47.
KowalskiR. M. (2000). “I was only kidding!”: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231–241. doi:10.1177/0146167200264009
48.
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.
49.
LernerM. J.MillerD. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.
50.
MartensA.KosloffS.GreenbergJ.LandauM. J.SchmaderT. (2007). Killing begets killing: Evidence from a bug-killing paradigm that initial killing fuels subsequent killing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1251–1264. doi:10.1177/0146167207303020
51.
McAlisterA. L.BanduraA.OwenS. V. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 141–165. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.2.141
52.
MeierB. P.SellbomM.WygantD. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 757–767. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.001
53.
MyersB.GodwinD.LatterR.WinstanleyS. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 39–55.
54.
OsofskyM. J.BanduraA.ZimbardoP. G. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371–393. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1
55.
PaulhusD. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 421–426. doi:10.1177/0963721414547737
56.
PaulhusD. L.WilliamsK. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
57.
RauthmannJ. F. (2011). Acquisitive or protective self-presentation of dark personalities? Associations among the Dark Triad and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 502–508. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.008
58.
RauthmannJ. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 487–496. doi:10.1177/1948550611427608
59.
RauthmannJ. F.KolarG. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psychopath?Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 622–627. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.021
60.
RhatiganD. L.AxsomD. K. (2006). Using the investment model to understand battered women’s commitment to abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 153–162.
61.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
62.
RusbultC. E.BuunkB. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204.
63.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.
64.
RusbultC. E.MorrowG. D.JohnsonD. J. (1987). Self-esteem and problem-solving behaviour in close relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 293–303.
65.
SandersonC. A.ZannaA. S.DarleyJ. M. (2000). Making the Punishment Fit the Crime and the Criminal: Attributions of Dangerousness as a Mediator of Liability 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1137–1159.
66.
TyburJ. M.LiebermanD.GriskeviciusV. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122. doi:10.1037/a0015474
67.
VaesJ.MuratoreM. (2013). Defensive dehumanization in the medical practice: A cross-sectional study from a health care worker’s perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 180–190. doi:10.1111/bjso.12008
68.
WaiM.TiliopoulosN. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794–799. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008
69.
WaytzA.EpleyN. (2012). Social connection enables dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 70–76. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.012
70.
ZebelS.ZimmermannA.VikiG. T.DoosjeB. (2008). Dehumanization and guilt as distinct but related predictors of support for reparation policies. Political Psychology, 29, 193–219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00623.x
71.
ZechmeisterJ. S.RomeroC. (2002). Victim and offender accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.4.675
