Cooley et al. and Hodson and Doucher show that individuals, individuals within groups, and groups evoke different levels of perceived humanity, and that these differences affect sympathy and willingness to help. In three preregistered experiments, we successfully replicate these findings in a different cultural context (Slovakia). We then test whether manipulating these depictions also affects support for policies that benefit the target. We focus on a disadvantaged ethnic minority (the Roma). Finally, we investigate whether internal (under the beneficiary’s control) versus external attribution (outside of the beneficiary’s control) is a mitigating factor. We confirm individuals and group-compositions evoke higher levels of policy support than groups through increases in perceived humanity. However, this relationship only holds under conditions of external attribution. To humanize disadvantaged groups and bolster policy support, advocates should center their communicative messages around individuals rather than unitary groups and avoid stereotype-enforcing internal attributions.
AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2012). Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple categorisation and of human identity: Reducing dehumanisation outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 875–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1902
2.
AlfonsA.AteşN. Y.GroenenP. J. F. (2022). A robust bootstrap test for mediation analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 591–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428121999096
3.
AndrighettoL.BaldissarriC.LattanzioS.LoughnanS.VolpatoC. (2014). Human-itarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12066
4.
AnthonjC.SettyK. E.EzbakheF.MangaM.HoeserC. (2020). A systematic review of water, sanitation and hygiene among Roma communities in Europe: Situation analysis, cultural context, and obstacles to improvement. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 226, Article 113506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113506
5.
AronowP. M.BaronJ.PinsonL. (2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.5
6.
AuR. H. Y.NgG. T. T. (2021). Mind perception and stereotype attribution of corporations and charities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12377
7.
BainP.ParkJ.KwokC.HaslamN. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms of subtle dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209340415
8.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.CooleyE.MarshburnC. K.McKeeS. E.LeiR. F. (2021). Investigating the interplay between race, work ethic stereotypes, and attitudes toward welfare recipients and policies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12, 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620983051
9.
BullockH. E.WilliamsW. R.LimbertW. M. (2003). Predicting support for welfare policies: The impact of attributions and beliefs about inequality. Journal of Poverty, 7(3), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J134v07n03_03
10.
CapozzaD.TrifilettiE.VezzaliL.FavaraI. (2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions?International Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688132
11.
CelnikerJ. B.GregoryA.KooH. J.PiffP. K.DittoP. H.ShariffA. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259
12.
CooleyE.Brown-IannuzziJ. L.BoudreauC. (2019). Shifting stereotypes of welfare recipients can reverse racial biases in support for wealth redistribution. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829062
13.
CooleyE.PayneB. K. (2019). A group is more than the average of its parts: Why existing stereotypes are applied more to the same individuals when viewed in groups than when viewed alone. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(5), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218756494
14.
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, 146(5), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000293
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
16.
CozzarelliC.WilkinsonA. V.TaglerM. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00209
17.
CuddyA. J. C.RockM. S.NortonM. I. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207071344
18.
DaviesT.YogeeswaranK.VerkuytenM.LoughnanS. (2018). From humanitarian aid to humanization: When outgroup, but not ingroup, helping increases humanization. PLOS ONE, 13(11), Article e0207343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207343
19.
EssesV. M.VeenvlietS.HodsonG.MihicL. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0058-4
20.
FindorA.HruškaM.HlatkyR.HrustičT.Bošel’ováZ. (2022). Equality, reciprocity, or need? Bolstering welfare policy support for marginalized groups with distributive fairness. American Political Science Review, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001046
21.
FordR. (2016). Who should we help? An experimental test of discrimination in the British welfare state. Political Studies, 64(3), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12194
22.
FriedrichS.KonietschkeF.PaulyM. (2019). Resampling-based analysis of multivariate data and repeated measures designs with the R package MANOVA.RM. The R Journal, 11(2), 380–400.
23.
GilensM. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. The University of Chicago Press.
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(2), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292
HarellA.SorokaS.IyengarS. (2016). Race, prejudice and attitudes toward redistribution: A comparative experimental approach. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12158
HaslamN.LoughnanS.KashimaY.BainP. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645
29.
HodsonG.DoucherC. (2020). Language framing shapes dehumanization of groups: A successful replication and extension of Cooley et al. (2017). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1603–1607. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000723
30.
KendeA.HadaricsM.BigazziS.BozaM.KunstJ. R.LantosN. A.LášticováB.MinescuA.PivettiM.UrbiolaA. (2020). The last acceptable prejudice in Europe? Anti-Gypsyism as the obstacle to Roma inclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 388–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220907701
31.
KrijnenJ. M. T.ÜlkümenG.BogardJ. E.FoxC. R. (2022). Lay theories of financial well-being predict political and policy message preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(2), 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000392
32.
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
33.
LoughnanS.HaslamN.SuttonR. M.SpencerB. (2014). Dehumanization and social class: Animality in the stereotypes of “white trash,” “chavs,” and “bogans.”Social Psychology, 45(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000159
34.
MartinA. E.MasonM. F. (2022). What does it mean to be (seen as) human? The importance of gender in humanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123, 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000293
35.
McDonaldM.PoratR.YarkoneyA.Reifen TagarM.KimelS.SaguyT.HalperinE. (2017). Intergroup emotional similarity reduces dehumanization and promotes conciliatory attitudes in prolonged conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(1), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215595107
36.
NelsonT. E.KinderD. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960149
37.
NosekB. A.LakensD. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
38.
PetersenM. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00545.x
39.
PetersenM. B.SznycerD.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2012). Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions, and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology, 33(3), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00883.x
40.
PratiF.CrispR. J.MeleadyR.RubiniM. (2016). Humanizing outgroups through multiple categorization: The roles of individuation and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216636624
41.
PratiF.VasiljevicM.CrispR. J.RubiniM. (2015). Some extended psychological benefits of challenging social stereotypes: Decreased dehumanization and a reduced reliance on heuristic thinking. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 801–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214567762
42.
RaiT. S.DiermeierD. (2015). Corporations are cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.001
43.
RaiT. S.ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (2017). Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8511–8516. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705238114
44.
SaguyT.SzekeresH.NouriR.GoldenbergA.DoronG.DovidioJ. F.YungerC.HalperinE. (2015). Awareness of intergroup help can rehumanize the out-group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615574748
45.
SainzM.LoughnanS.MartínezR.MoyaM.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2020). Dehumanization of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups decreases support for welfare policies via perceived wastefulness. International Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.414
46.
SainzM.MartínezR.MoyaM.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2019). Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio-economic status and attribution of humanity. International Journal of Psychology, 54(4), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12485
47.
SainzM.MartínezR.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoyaM. (2019). Where does the money come from? Humanizing high socioeconomic status groups undermines attitudes toward redistribution. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 771. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00771
48.
SainzM.MartínezR.SuttonR. M.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoyaM. (2020). Less human, more to blame: Animalizing poor people increases blame and decreases support for wealth redistribution. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219841135
49.
TangS.GrayK. (2021). Feeling empathy for organizations: Moral consequences, mechanisms, and the power of framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, Article 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104147
50.
VezzaliL.CapozzaD.Di BernardoG. A.FalvoR.StathiS.HodsonG. (2022). Strategies for the promotion of humanity attribution to outgroups. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(2), 215–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1963156
51.
WaytzA.GrayK.EpleyN.WegnerD. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
52.
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(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310387615
53.
ZagefkaH.NoorM.BrownR.de MouraG. R.HopthrowT. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.781
54.
ZebelS.ZimmermannA.VikiG. T.DoosjeB. (2008). Dehumanization and guilt as distinct but related predictors of support for reparation policies. Political Psychology, 29(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/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.
