With the ubiquitous presence of the Internet, comments that dehumanize foreigners are frequently found on social networking platforms. These comments may function as dehumanizing norms and facilitate discrimination against foreigners in the offline world. In the current research, three studies were conducted to explore this possibility. Study 1 was a correlational study that revealed a positive association between dehumanizing norms and discrimination against foreigners. Studies 2 and 3 manipulated dehumanizing norms and found that these norms promoted discrimination against foreigners via increased prejudice toward them. Study 3 further measured perceived online anonymity and revealed that decreasing perceived online anonymity buffered the destructive influences of dehumanizing norms. In conclusion, to our knowledge, the current research represents the first attempt to empirically explore the normative influences of dehumanization on discrimination against foreigners and provides practical implications for comment management on the Internet.
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(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
5.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
6.
BarbieriK.SchneiderG. (1999). Globalization and peace: Assessing new directions in the study of trade and conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036004001
7.
BatsonC. D.FultzJ.SchoenradeP. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x
8.
BlanchardF. A.CrandallC. S.BrighamJ. C.VaughnL. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 993–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.993
9.
BruneauE.JacobyN.KteilyN.SaxeR. (2018). Denying humanity: The distinct neural correlates of blatant dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(7), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000417
ChristophersonK. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 3038–3056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
12.
ChungJ. E. (2019). Peer influence of online comments in newspapers: Applying social norms and the social identification model of deindividuation effects (SIDE). Social Science Computer Review, 37(4), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318779000
13.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
14.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
15.
CostelloK.HodsonG. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal–human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
DangJ.LiuL. (2020). When peer norms work? Coherent groups facilitate normative influences on cyber aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46(6), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21920
18.
Da Silva FrostA.LedgerwoodA. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
19.
DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919.n1
20.
EdwardsC.EdwardsA.QingQ.WahlS. T. (2007). The influence of computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes toward learning course content. Communication Education, 56(3), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701236866
21.
ErikssonK.StrimlingP.CoultasJ. C. (2015). Bidirectional associations between descriptive and injunctive norms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.011
22.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
HaslamN.BainP.DougeL.LeeM.BastianB. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
28.
HiteD. M.VoelkerT.RobertsonA. (2014). Measuring perceived anonymity: The development of a context independent instrument. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 5(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.2458/v5i1.18305
29.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18(8), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01962.x
30.
HsuehM.YogeeswaranK.MalinenS. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research, 41(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12059
31.
JohnsonR. D.DowningL. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1532–1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.9.1532
32.
KersbergenI.RobinsonE. (2019). Blatant dehumanization of people with obesity. Obesity, 27(6), 1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22460
33.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
34.
LeyensJ.DemoulinS.VaesJ.GauntR.PaladinoM. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x
35.
LeyensJ.Rodriguez-PerezA.Rodriguez-TorresR.GauntR.PaladinoM.VaesJ.DemoulinS. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50
36.
LindénM.BjörklundF.BäckströmM. (2016). What makes authoritarian and socially dominant people more positive to using torture in the war on terrorism?Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.058
37.
MacInnisC. C.HodsonG. (2012). Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(6), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212442419
38.
McConahayJ. B.HardeeB. B.BattsV. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4), 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278102500401
39.
McGartyC. (2014). Twenty years after genocide: The role of psychology in the reconciliation and reconstruction process in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.449
40.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
41.
PacilliM. G.RoccatoM.PagliaroS.RussoS. (2016). From political opponents to enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215590490
42.
PostmesT.SpearsR.SakhelK.De GrootD. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710001
RehmJ.SteinleitnerM.LilliW. (1987). Wearing uniforms and aggression: A field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(3), 357–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420170310
45.
ReicherS. D.SpearsR.PostmesT. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049
46.
RösnerL.KrämerN. C. (2016). Verbal venting in the social web: Effects of anonymity and group norms on aggressive language use in online comments. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664220
47.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
48.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
49.
SakkiI.CastrénL. (2022). Dehumanization through humour and conspiracies in online hate towards Chinese people during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Psychology. 61(4), 1418–1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12543
50.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
51.
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper & Row.
52.
StangorC.SechristG. B.JostJ. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274009
53.
SunsteinC. R. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford University Press.
WhiteK. M.SmithJ. R.TerryD. J.GreensladeJ. H.McKimmieB. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X295207
56.
ZimbardoP. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.
57.
ZimbardoP. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
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.
