Dehumanization as a Response to Uncivil and Immoral Behaviors

  1. Laura Rodríguez Gómez 1
  2. Naira Delgado 1
  3. Armando Rodríguez Pérez 1
  4. Ramón Rodríguez Torres 1
  5. Verónica Betancor 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Revista:
EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

ISSN: 2174-8144,  2254-9625

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 12

Número: 9

Páginas: 1415-1426

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/EJIHPE12090098 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Theoretical approaches to dehumanization consider civility to be an attribute of human uniqueness (HU). However, studies that explore the links between civility and humanness are scarce. More precisely, the present research tests whether there is a consistent relationship between civility and HU. Method and results: The first study (N = 192; Mage = 19.91; SD = 2.70; 69% women) shows that individuals infer more HU traits in the agents of civil behaviors compared to agents of other positive behaviors that are not related to civility. The second study (N = 328; Mage = 19.69; SD = 3.65; 77% women) reveals that uncivil and immoral behaviors displayed a similar pattern of inference of HU traits; however, moral behaviors were more associated with human nature than civil behaviors. Conclusions: Overall, results confirmed that civil behaviors facilitate the inference of humanness, specifically of HU traits, and that civil and moral behaviors are not equivalent in terms of the human inferences to which they lead.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bastian, B.; Denson, T.F.; Haslam, N. The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61842.
  • Bastian, B.; Laham, S.M.; Wilson, S.; Haslam, N.; Koval, P. Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 50, 469–483.
  • Calhoun, C. The virtue of civility. Philos. Public Aff. 2000, 29, 251–275.
  • Chas, A.; Betancor, V.; Delgado, N.; Rodríguez-Pérez, A. Children consider their own group to be more human than other social groups: Evidence from indirect and direct measures. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 49, 125–134.
  • Chaurand, N.; Brauer, M. What Determines Social Control? People’s Reactions to Counternormative Behaviors in Urban Environments. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 1689–1715.
  • Curry, O.S.; Mullins, D.A.; Whitehouse, H. Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Curr. Anthropol. 2019, 60, 47–69.
  • DeScioli, P.; Kurzban, R. A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139, 477.
  • Duran, A.; Renfro, L.; Waller, M.; Trafimow, D. Perceptions of sexual orientation: A hierarchically restrictive trait. Sex Roles A J. Res. 2007, 57, 763–773.
  • Farzi, F.; Hasanvand, S.; Goudarzi, F.; Gavgani, M.T.; Mokhayeri, Y. Management of students’ uncivil behaviors in academic environments: A context-based educational intervention. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2021, 10, 229.
  • Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191.
  • Ferriss, A.L. Studying and measuring civility: A framework, trends and scale. Sociol. Inq. 2002, 72, 376–392.
  • Forni, P.M. Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct; Palgrave Macmillian: London, UK, 2002.
  • Gray, K.; Schein, C.; Ward, A.F. The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2014, 143, 1600–1615.
  • Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion; Pantheon: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
  • Haslam, N. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 10, 252–264.
  • Haslam, N.; Bain, P. Humanizing the self: Moderators of the attribution of lesser humanness to others. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2007, 33, 57–68.
  • Haslam, N.; Bain, P.; Douge, L.; Lee, M.; Bastian, B. More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89, 937.
  • Haslam, N.; Stratemeyer, M. Recent research on dehumanization. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 11, 25–29.
  • Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B. A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 1002–1012.
  • Khan, M.S.; Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G. Workplace Incivility and Job Satisfaction: Mediation of Subjective Well-Being and Moderation of Forgiveness Climate in Health Care Sector. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1107–1119.
  • Kingwell, M. A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism; Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 1995.
  • Kumar, K. Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. Br. J. Sociol. 1993, 44, 375–395.
  • Martínez, R.; Rodríguez-Bailón, R.; Moya, M. Are they animals or machines? Measuring dehumanization. Span. J. Psychol. 2012, 15, 1110–1122.
  • Miller, J.G.; Bersoff, D.M.; Harwood, R.L. Perceptions of social responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moral imperatives or personal decisions? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 33–47.
  • Montalvo, L. An evidence based synthesis of civility and incivility literature: A model to explain civil and uncivil behaviors in the workplace. In Proceedings of the Third Annual International Conference on Engaged Management Scholarship, Atlanta, Georgia, 19–22 September 2013.
  • Over, H. Seven challenges for the dehumanization hypothesis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 16, 3–13.
  • Peck, D.L. Civility: A contemporary context for a meaningful historical concept. Sociol. Inq. 2002, 72, 358–375.
  • Phillips, T.; Smith, P. Everyday incivility: Towards a benchmark. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 51, 85–108.
  • Reeder, G.D.; Brewer, M.B. A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev. 1979, 86, 61–79.
  • Reeder, G.D.; Coovert, M.D. Revising an impression of morality. Soc. Cogn. 1986, 4, 1–17.
  • Robin, M.; Matheau-Police, A.; Couty, C. Development of a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 55–68.
  • Rodríguez-Gómez, L.; Delgado, N.; Betancor, V.; Chen-Xia, X.J.; Rodríguez-Pérez, A. Humanness Is Not Always Positive: Automatic Associations between Incivilities and Human Symbols. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4353.
  • Rodríguez-Pérez, A.; Brambilla, M.; Betancor, V.; Delgado, N.; Rodríguez-Gómez, L. Stereotypes and dehumanization: The relationship between the dual models of dehumanization and stereotype content. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 52, 265–274.
  • Seligman, A.B. Trust and the meaning of civil society. Int. J. Politics Cult. Soc. 1992, 6, 5–21.
  • Shils, E. The virtue of civil society. Gov. Oppos. 1991, 26, 3–20.
  • Southwood, N. The Moral/Conventional distinction. Mind 2011, 120, 761–802.
  • Sypher, B.D. Reclaiming civil discourse in the workplace. South. J. Commun. 2004, 69, 257–269.
  • Vaes, J.; Paladino, M.P.; Haslam, N. Seven Clarifications on the Psychology of Dehumanization. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 16, 28–32.
  • Viki, G.T.; Winchester, L.; Titshall, L.; Chisango, T.; Pina, A.; Russell, R. Beyond secondary emotions: The infrahumanization of outgroups using human–related and animal–related words. Soc. Cogn. 2006, 24, 753–775.
  • Wilson, S.; Haslam, N. Humanness beliefs about behavior: An index and comparative human-nonhuman behavior judgements. Behav. Res. Methods 2012, 45, 372.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet