Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
The tethered humanity hypothesis among victims of interpersonal harm: The role of apologies,forgiveness,and the relation between self-,other-,and meta-perceptions of humanity
When interpersonal harm is inflicted, victims stop seeing themselves as fully human. The tethered humanity hypothesis proposes that victims restore a full human status when perpetrators undertake attempts at reconciliation and victims manage to reestablish the humanness of their perpetrators. In two studies, we tested this hypothesis and manipulated the perpetrators attempts at apologizing for their misconduct. Participants were either included or socially excluded and received a full or self-exonerating apology or a hostile message when they were excluded. Results indicated that victims dehumanized themselves and their ostracizers when they were socially excluded and managed to regain a full human status and rehumanized their perpetrators when a full apology was uttered. Moreover, regression analyses indicated that different humanness judgments (self, other, and meta-humanness) become tethered only when perpetrators apologized, while forgiving the perpetrator always correlated with the rehumanization of the self regardless of the perpetrator’s apology.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetuation of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
2.
BanduraA.UnderwoodB.FromsonM. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(4), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(75)90001-X
3.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
4.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
5.
BastianB.JettenJ.RadkeH. R. (2012). Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009
6.
BastianB.JettenJ.ChenH.RadkeH.HardingJ. F.FasoliF. (2013). Losing our humanity: The self-dehumanizing consequences of social ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212471205
7.
BastianB.JettenJ.HaslamN. (2014). An interpersonal perspective on dehumanization. In BainP. G.VaesJ.LeyensJ. -P. (Eds.), Humanness and dehumanization (pp. 205–224). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203110539
8.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.994
9.
BotcharovaO. (2001). Implementation of track two diplomacy: Developing a model of forgiveness. In RaymondG.HelmickS. J.PetersenR. L. (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflict transformation (pp. 279– 305). Templeton Press.
10.
ChesterD. S.DeWallC. N. (2017). Combating the sting of rejection with the pleasure of revenge: A new look at how emotion shapes aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000080
11.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774441
12.
DemoulinS.CortesB. P.VikiT. G.RodriguezA. P.RodriguezR. T.PaladinoM. P.LeyensJ. P. (2009). The role of in-group identification in infra-humanization. International Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590802057654
13.
DemoulinS.NguyenN.ChevallereauT.FontesseS.BastartJ.StinglhamberF.MaurageP. (2021). Examining the role of fundamental psychological needs in the development of metadehumanization: A multi-population approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 196–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12380
14.
FehrRGelfandM. J.NagM. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993
15.
Gobodo-MadikizelaP. (2006). A human being died that night: Forgiving Apartheid’s chief killer. Portobello Books.
16.
GoldenbergJ. L.PyszczynskiT.GreenbergJ.SolomonS.KluckB.CornwellR. (2001). I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.427
17.
GoldenbergJ. L.HeflickN.VaesJ.MotylM.GreenbergJ. (2009). Of mice and men and objectified women: A terror management account of infra-humanisation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340569
18.
GoldsteinJ. H.DavisR. W.HermanD. (1975). Escalation of aggression: Experimental studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076241
19.
GwinnJ. D.JuddC. M.ParkB. (2013). Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005
20.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
KennyD. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. The Guilford Press.
24.
KirchhoffJ.WagnerU.StrackM. (2012). Apologies: Words of magic? The role of verbal components, anger reduction, and offence severity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028092
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
26.
KteilyN.BruneauE. (2017). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334
27.
LazareA. (2004). On apology. Oxford University Press.
28.
LeyensJ. P.DemoulinS.VaesJ.GauntR.PaladinoM. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172.
29.
LukeM. A.MaioG. R. (2009). Oh the humanity! Humanity-esteem and its social importance. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 586–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.001
30.
McCulloughM. E.FinchamF. D.TsangJ. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.84.3.540
31.
McCulloughM. E.RachalK. C.SandageS. J.WorthingtonE. L.BrownS. W.HightT. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. II: Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586
32.
OhbuchiK.KamedaM.AgarieN. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.219
33.
OkimotoT.G.WenzelM. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In HegtvedtK. A.Clay-WarnerJ. (Eds.), Justice (Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 25), pp. 291–326. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(08)25004-6
34.
PaladinoM. P.VaesJ.CastanoE.DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P. (2004). Emotional infra- humanisation in intergroup relations: The role of national identification in the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to Italians and Germans. Current Psychology of Cognition, 22, 519–536.
35.
PavetichM.StathiS. (2020). Meta-humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000259
36.
RosenbergM. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. University Press.
37.
SainzM.MartínezR.MoyaM.Rodríguez-BailónR.VaesJ. (2021). Lacking socio-economic status reduces subjective well-being through perceptions of meta-dehumanization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12412
38.
ScherS. J.DarleyJ. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 26(1), 127–140.
39.
SchumannK. (2012). Does love mean never having to say you’re sorry? Associations between relationship satisfaction, perceived apology sincerity, and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(7), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512448277
40.
SchumannK. (2014). An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on transgressors’ responses to victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013
41.
SchumannK. (2018). The psychology of offering an apology: Understanding the barriers to apologizing and how to overcome them. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417741709
42.
SchumannK.WaltonG. M. (2022). Rehumanizing the self after victimization: The roles of forgiveness versus revenge.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000367
43.
SchwartzS. H.StruchN. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and intergroup antagonism. In Bar-TalD.GraumanC. F.KruglanskiA.StroebeW. (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). Springer-Verlag.
44.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
45.
VaesJ.HeflickN. A.GoldenbergJ. L. (2010). “We are people”: Ingroup humanization as existential defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 750–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017658
46.
VaesJ.BastianB. (2021). Tethered humanity: Humanizing self and others in response to interpersonal harm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2744
47.
WadeN. G.HoytW. T.KidwellJ. E. M.WorthingtonE. L.Jr. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154–170. https://doi:10.1037/a0035268
48.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
WilliamsK. D.CheungC. K.ChoiW. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.748
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.
