Increasing economic inequality adversely affects groups with low socioeconomic status (low-SES). However, many people are opposed to wealth redistribution policies. In this context, we examined whether dehumanization of low-SES groups has a role in this opposition. In the first study (N = 303), opposition to wealth redistribution was related to denying human uniqueness (e.g., intelligence and rationality) and having negative attitudes toward low-SES groups, more than denying human nature (e.g., emotionality and capacity to suffer) to low-SES groups. Mediation analyses indicated that this effect occurred via blaming low-SES groups for their plight, after controlling for participants’ SES and negative attitudes towards low-SES groups. In the second study (N = 220), manipulating the human uniqueness of a fictitious low-SES group affected support for wealth redistribution measures through blame. These results indicate that animalizing low-SES groups reduces support for wealth redistribution via blaming low-SES groups for their situation.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
AndrighettoL.BaldissarriC.LattanzioS.LoughnanS.VolpatoC. (2014). Humanitarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 573–584. doi:10.1111/bjso.12066
3.
AshokV.KuziemkoI.WashingtonE. (2015). Support for redistribution in an age of rising inequality: New stylized facts and some tentative explanations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2015, 367–405. doi:10.3386/w21529
4.
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
5.
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
6.
BastianB.LahamS. M.WilsonS.HaslamN.KovalP. (2011). Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 469–483. doi:10.1348/014466610X521383
7.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26. doi:10.1177/0956797614553947
8.
BullockH. E.WilliamsW. R.LimbertW. M. (2003). Predicting support for welfare policies: The impact of attributions and beliefs about inequality. Journal of Poverty, 7, 35–56. doi:10.1300/J134v07n03_03
9.
ButtrickN. R.OishiS. (2017). The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social Personality Psychology Compass, 11, 1–12. doi:10.1111/spc3.12304
10.
CozzarelliC.WilkinsonA. V.TaglerM. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 207–227. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00209
11.
DawtryR. J.SuttonR. M.SibleyC. G. (2015). Why wealthier people think people are wealthier, and why it matters: From social sampling to attitudes to redistribution. Psychological Science, 26, 1389–1400. doi:10.1177/0956797615586560
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
13.
García-SánchezE.van der ToornJ.Rodríguez-BailónR.WillisG. B. (2018). The vicious cycle of economic inequality: The role of ideology in shaping the relationship between “what is” and “what ought to be” in 41 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550618811500
14.
HaqueO. S.WaytzA. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 176–186. doi:10.1177/1745691611429706
15.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
16.
HaslamN. (2014). What is dehumanization? In BainP. G.VaesJ.LeyensJ. P. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanisation (pp. 34–48). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
17.
HaslamN.LoughnanS. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
18.
HaslamN.StratemeyerM. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009
19.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HeisermanN.SimpsonB. (2017). Higher inequality increases the gap in the perceived merit of the rich and poor. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80, 243–253. doi:10.1177/0190272517711919
21.
Jaime-CastilloA. M.Sáez-LozanoJ. L. (2014). Preferences for tax schemes in OECD countries, self-interest and ideology. International Political Science Review, 37, 81–98. doi:10.1177/0192512114539716
22.
KrausM. W.KeltnerD. (2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20, 99–106. doi:10.1111/ j.1467–9280.2008.02251.x
23.
KteilyN.BruneauE. (2017). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 87–104. doi:10.1177/0146167216675334
24.
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
25.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Meta-dehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 343–370. doi:10.1037/pspa0000044
26.
KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HoA. K. (2017). (Anti-)egalitarianism shapes perceived levels of social inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 136–159. doi:10.1037/pspp0000097
27.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.SuttonR. M.SpencerB. (2014). Dehumanization and social class: Animality in the stereotypes of “white trash,” “chavs,” and “bogans.”Social Psychology, 45, 54–61. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000159
28.
MartínezR.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoyaM.VaesJ. (2015). Interacting with dehumanized others? Only if they are objectified. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 1–18. doi:10.1177/1368430215612219
29.
MoyaM.FiskeS. T. (2017). The social psychology of the Great Recession and social class divides. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 8–22. doi:10.1111/josi.1220
30.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.PiqueroA. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x
31.
Rodríguez-BailónR.BratanovaB. A.WillisG.López-RodríguezL.SturrockA.LoughnanS. (2017). Social class and ideologies of inequality: How they uphold unequal societies. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 99–116. doi:10.1111/josi.12206
32.
SainzM.MartínezR.MoyaM.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2018). Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socioeconomic status and humanity attributions. International Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/ijop.12485
33.
SandsM. L. (2017). Exposure to inequality affects support for redistribution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 663–668. doi:10.1073/pnas.1615010113
34.
ShahA. K.MullainathanS.ShafirE. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338, 682–685. doi:10.1126/science.1222426
35.
TaglerM. J.CozzarelliC. (2013). Feelings toward the poor and beliefs about the causes of poverty: The role of affective–cognitive consistency in help-giving. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147, 517–539. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.718721
36.
TestéB. (2017). Control beliefs and dehumanization: Targets with an internal locus of control are perceived as being more human than external targets. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 76, 81–86. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000194
37.
VaesJ.LeyensJ.-P.PaladinoM. P.MirandaM. P. (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. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
38.
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
39.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00944.x
40.
WaytzA.SchroederJ. (2014). Overlooking others: Dehumanization by commission and omission. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 251–266. doi:10.4473/TPM21.3.2
41.
WeinerB.OsborneD.RudolphU. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199–213. doi:10.1177/1088868310387615
42.
WilkinsonR. G.PickettK. E. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
43.
WilkinsonR. G.PickettK. E. (2017). The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 11–24. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2275
44.
WillisG. B.Rodríguez-BailónR.López-RodríguezL.García-SánchezE. (2015). Legitimacy moderates the relation between perceived and ideal economic inequalities. Social Justice Research, 28, 493–508. doi:10.1007/s11211-015-0253-7
45.
ZebelS.ZimmermannA.VikiG. T.DoosjeB. (2008). Dehumanization and guilt as distinct but related predictors of support for reparation policies. International Journal of 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.
