We investigated the nature of prejudice toward people with developmental disabilities, its potential roots in dehumanization, its implications for social policy beliefs affecting this target group, and strategies for reducing prejudice toward people with developmental disabilities. Studies 1 (N = 196, MTurk) and 2 (N = 296, undergraduates) tested whether prejudice took a hostile or ambivalent (both hostile and benevolent components) form. Consistent support for a hostile prejudice model was found. This model was comprised of beliefs that people with developmental disabilities may harm others, should be kept separate from others, and are dependent on others. Also, greater dehumanization was associated with greater prejudice, and prejudice mediated the effect of dehumanization on participants’ social policy beliefs. Study 3 (N = 151, MTurk) provided construct validity for the newly developed multidimensional measure of prejudice. Study 4 (N = 156, undergraduates) showed that presenting a person with developmental disabilities in either humanizing or individuating ways reduced dehumanization and prejudice and, in turn, increased the favorability of social policy beliefs.
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
4.
BraddockD. L.ParishS. L. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In AlbrechtG. LSeelmanK. D.BuryM. (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 11–68). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
5.
BrewerM. B.MillerN. (1988). Contact and cooperation: When do they work? In KatzP.TaylorD. (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Means and controversies (pp. 315–326). New York, NY: Plenum.
6.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
8.
CohenJ.StrueningE. L. (1962). Opinions about mental illness in the personnel of two large mental hospitals. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 349–360. doi:10.1037/h0045526
9.
ConnorR. A.GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the 21st century. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 295–320). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CooleyE.PayneB. K.CipolliW.CameronC. D.BergerA.GrayK. (2017). The paradox of group mind: “People in a group” have more mind than “a group of people.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1037/xge0000293
11.
CorriganP. W.EdwardsA. B.GreenA.DiwanS. L.PennD. L. (2001). Prejudice, social distance, and familiarity with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27, 219–225. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a006868
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. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
16.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. 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
17.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2
18.
FiskeS. T.StevensL. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In StuartO.CostanzoM. (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
19.
FiskeS. T.XuJ.CuddyA. C.GlickP. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00128
20.
GallagherH. (2001). What the Nazi “euthanasia program” can tell us about disability oppression. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12, 96–99. doi:10.1177/104420730101200206
21.
GlickP. G.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
22.
GlickP. G.FiskeS. T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
23.
GlickP. G.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.. . . LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
24.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292
25.
GoffP. A.JacksonM. C.Di LeoneB. A. L.CulottaC. M.DiTomassoN. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 526–545. doi:10.1037/a0035663
26.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
27.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
28.
HaslamN.LoughnanS. (2012). Prejudice and dehumanization. In DixonJ.LevineM. (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality, and social change (pp. 89–103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.. . . StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028. doi:10.1037/pspi0000033
31.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691–698. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01962.x
32.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
33.
HuangY.OsborneD.SibleyC. G.DaviesP. G. (2014). The precious vessel: Ambivalent sexism and opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Sex Roles, 71, 446–449. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0423-3
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. doi:10.1037/pspp0000048
36.
LaneS. P.HennesE. P. (2018). Power struggles: Estimating sample size for multilevel relationships research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 7–31. doi:10.1177/0265407517710342
37.
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. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
38.
MaozI.McCauleyC. (2008). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 93–116. doi:10.1177/0022002707308597
39.
MeltonG. B.GarrisonE. G. (1987). Fear, prejudice, and neglect: Discrimination against mentally disabled persons. American Psychologist, 42, 1007–1026. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.1007
40.
Muth́enL. K.Muth́enB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muth́en & Muth́en.
41.
O’BrienG. V. (1999). Protecting the social body: Use of the organism metaphor in fighting the “menace of the feebleminded.”Mental Retardation, 37, 188–200. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037<0188:PTSBUO>2.0.CO;2
42.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
45.
RohmerO.LouvetE. (2018). Implicit stereotyping against people with disability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 127–140. doi:10.1177/1368430216638536
46.
RothbartM.LewisS. (1988). Inferring category attributes from exemplar attributes: Geometric shapes and social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 861–872. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.861
47.
RowattW. C.LaBouffJ.JohnsonM.FroeseP.TsangJ. (2009). Associations among religiousness, social attitudes, and prejudice in a national random sample of American adults. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 14–24. doi:10.1037/a0014989
48.
SearsD. O.HenryP. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95–150. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37002-X
49.
SidaniusJ.DevereuxE.PrattoF. (1992). A comparison of symbolic racism theory and social dominance theory as explanations for racial policy attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 377–395. doi:10.1080/00224545.1992.9924713
WernerS.CorriganP. W.DitchmanN.SokolK. (2012). Stigma and intellectual disability: A review of related measures and future directions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 748–765. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.10.009
52.
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
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.
