INFRAHUMANIZATION

INFRAHUMANIZATION

Multiculturalism and infrahumanization

In today's multicultural society, ethnic minorities may be infrahumanized as they are perceived as not being socially integrated.

Research has shown that Roma Gypsies are infrahumanized across Europe. (Perez, Chulvi & Alonso, 2001)

Underlying aim: To examine the source of this infrahumanization between majority and ethnic minorities, and apply to it the current political gridlock both in Congress and in the blogosphere.

Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup

“We’re humans; they’re animals!” Primary & secondary emotions (Leyens et al)

Primary emotions are common to animals and humans (e.g. anger, surprise, fear, and disgust), while secondary emotions are exclusively human (e.g. nostalgia).

Primary emotions attributed to both in-group and out-group

Secondary emotions to in-group only

Research question

Research question: Does computer-mediated communication (CMC) between members of opposing groups lead to greater evidence of infrahumanization than face-to-face communication?

InfrahumanizationProcess by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup

Primary Emotions: anger, fear, sadness, joy Secondary emotions: sorrow, admiration, fondness

Effect of infrahumanization is diminished when the outgroup is established as individuals rather than group members

Infrahumanization H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup

H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group

SIDE

When social identity is salient, and members are visually anonymous, partners relate on the basis of the group.

More likely to stereotype More likely to conform to norms Overattribution

Infrahumanization and CMC

H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup

H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup

Pilot Data: Word Matrix Survey of 48 words we conducted in class to help us determine the status of each word used in the actual study.

Pilot Data: The Survey

Primary vs. Secondary

Looked at 3 Categories of Words*: Animal/Human Words

Examples: Educated, Civilized, Criminal

Emotion Words Examples: Hopeful, Optimistic, Disenchanted

Moral Words Examples: Virtuous, Righteous, Praiseworthy

*We tested 12 words in each category plus an additional 12 filler words to arrive at 48 total.

Humanness vs.Valence

Methodology Grade Obama Admin (e.g A+, B, C+, etc.)

CMC Instant Messaging vs. Face-To-Face

Democrats/Liberals v. Republicans/Conservatives Group identity made salient Eliciting of Emotions Evaluation

Methodology Word Choice Paradigm Choose words that describe outgroup

Choose words that describe partner

Preliminary Results For our purposes today, eight words matter

Uniquely human emotions: •hopeful, optimistic, resentful, disenchanted

Uniquely human descriptors: •civilized, educated, folksy, criminal

Preliminary Results Counting these words created the “uniquely human” score we are using for this study

High scores indicate high ratings of uniquely human qualities

Preliminary Results Evidence of infrahumanization? Yes.

H1:

more infrahumanization

toward outgroup than

ingroup

H2:

less infrahumanization

when describing

individual partner

than group

Preliminary Results How people viewed their partners

H3a: more

infrahumanization

in CMC than FtF

when describing

outgroup

H3b: less

infrahumanization

in CMC than FtF

when describing

ingroup

Preliminary Results How people viewed their ingroup

Preliminary Results How people described the outgroup

Preliminary Results | Trends Whom we talk to influences how “human” we rate groups

Preliminary Results | Trends Medium matters, especially for intergroup situations

Two participants after

talking face to face:

“We’re friends now.”

One participant after

talking via CMC:

“Was I even talking to a real person?”

Preliminary Results Limitations

Sample size (n=15, so far) 10 Minute Time Party balance:

•13 Democrats•2 Republicans (3 actually, but one resulted in spoiled data that was discarded)

Future Research/Analysis

Far-reaching implications in the way we interact as a society.

Ensuing biases - “us" & "them”

Human as a social identity

How did valence pan out in this study?

What is the underlying role of morality judgments in infrahumanization?

Contact Information

http://theingroup.wordpress.com/