Across three studies, we examined whether ingroup status may affect intergroup perceptions of humanity. In Studies 1 and 2, we considered real groups: Northern versus Southern Italians; in Study 3, we manipulated the socioeconomic status of two minimal groups. In all studies, members of higher status groups perceived the ingroup as more human than the outgroup, while members of lower status groups did not assign a privileged human status to the ingroup. Such findings were obtained using different implicit techniques: the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the Go/No-go Association Task (GNAT). Further, results suggest that the different perceptions of humanity may depend on the stereotypic traits generally ascribed to higher and lower status groups. The implications of results for infrahumanization research are discussed.
BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 181–198.
2.
BettencourtB. A.CharltonK.DorrN.HumeD. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.
3.
BoccatoG.CapozzaD.FalvoR.DuranteF. (2008). The missing link: Ingroup, outgroup and the human species. Social Cognition, 26, 223–233.
4.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.
5.
CapozzaD.BonaldoE.Di MaggioA. (1982). Problems of identity and social conflict: Research on ethnic groups in Italy. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 299–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CaprarielloP.CuddyA.FiskeS. T. (2009). Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 147–155.
7.
CastanoE.Giner-SorollaR. (2006). Not quite human: Infra-humanization as a response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 804–818.
8.
ČehajićS.BrownR.GonzalezR. (2009). What do I care? Perception of ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 715–729.
9.
ConwayM.PizzamiglioM. T.MountL. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 25–38.
10.
CortesB. P.DemoulinS.RodriguezR. T.RodriguezA. P.LeyensJ.-Ph. (2005). Infra-humanization or familiarity? Attribution of uniquely human emotions to the self, the ingroup, and the outgroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 243–253.
11.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12.
CuddyA. J. C.RockM.NortonM. I. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 107–118.
13.
DasguptaN. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143–169.
14.
DemoulinS.CortesB. P.VikiG. T.RodriguezA. P.RodriguezR. T.PaladinoM. P. (2009). The role of ingroup identification in infrahumanization. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 4–11.
DuranteF.CapozzaD.FiskeS. T. (2010). The stereotype content model: The role played by competence in inferring group status. TPM, Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 17, 187–199.
17.
DuranteF.PasinA.TrifilettiE. (2009). Applying the SCM to a specific intergroup relationship: Northern vs. Southern Italians. TPM, Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16, 141–150.
18.
EaglyA. H.SteffenV. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.
19.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83.
20.
GauntR. (2009). Superordinate categorization as a moderator of mutual infrahumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 731–746.
21.
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.
22.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
23.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
24.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
25.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
26.
GreitmeyerT.McLatchieN. (2011). Denying humanness to others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 659–665.
27.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.
28.
HaslamN.LoughnanS.KashimaY.BainP. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 55–85.
29.
HoffmanC.HurstN. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208.
30.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
31.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
32.
JostJ. T.KivetzY.RubiniM.GuermandiG.MossoC. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305–333.
33.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” sterotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.
34.
KayA. C.JostJ. T.YoungS. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240–246.
35.
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.
36.
LeyensJ.-Ph.CortesB. P.DemoulinS.DovidioJ. F.FiskeS. T.GauntR.. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 703–717.
37.
LeyensJ.-Ph.DemoulinS.VaesJ.GauntR.PaladinoM. P. (2007). Infrahumanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172.
38.
LeyensJ.-Ph.PaladinoM. P.RodriguezR. T.VaesJ.DemoulinS.RodriguezA. P.. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The role of secondary emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.
39.
LeyensJ.-Ph.RodriguezA. P.RodriguezR. T.GauntR.PaladinoM. P.VaesJ.. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395–411.
40.
LottT. L. (1999). The invention of race: Black culture and the politics of representation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
41.
LoughnanS.HaslamN. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121.
42.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.KashimaY. (2009). Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 747–762.
43.
NapierJ. L.JostJ. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals?Psychological Science, 19, 565–572.
44.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
45.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2001). The Go/No-go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666.
46.
PaladinoM. P.LeyensJ.-Ph.RodriguezR. T.RodriguezA. P.GauntR.DemoulinS. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions with the ingroup and the outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 105–117.
47.
PaladinoM. P.VaesJ.CastanoE.DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-Ph. (2004). Emotional infra-humanization in intergroup relations: The role of national identification in the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to Italians and Germans. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 22, 519–536.
48.
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.
49.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320.
50.
RichesonJ. A.TrawalterS.SheltonJ. N. (2005). African Americans’ racial attitudes and the depletion of executive function after interracial interactions. Social Cognition, 23, 336–352.
51.
RudmanL. A.FeinbergJ.FairchildK. (2002). Minority members’ implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20, 294–320.
52.
ScheepersD.SpearsR.DoosjeB.MansteadA. S. R. (2006). The social functions of in-group bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 359–396.
53.
SherifM. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
54.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
TimberlakeJ. M.EstesS. B. (2007). Do racial and ethnic stereotypes depend on the sex of target group members? Evidence from a survey-based experiment. The Sociological Quarterly, 48, 399–433
56.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P. (2010). The uniquely human content of stereotypes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 23–39.
57.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P.CastelliL.LeyensJ.-Ph.GiovanazziA. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016–1034.
58.
VikiG. T.WinchesterL.TitshallL.ChisangoT.PinaA.RussellR. (2006). Beyond secondary emotions: The infrahumanization of outgroups using human-related and animal-related words. Social Cognition, 24, 753–775.
