Identity, Surveillance, Humiliation

blackwood, hopkins, reicher (2012; 2013)

scottish muslims feel humiliated in airport survellience, and feel that their scottish + virtuous Muslim identity is threatenned.

What are the trigger conditions for defensive dehumanization (attributing less suffering or pain to the victim)?
- Dehumanization-as-a-function Emotional regulation hyp knowing that you cannot help/do so much
- Denying the pain of the person


Dehumanization may serve not only to justify harmful actions, but also to protect and cherished belief of those who observe harm.


Research question: Does dehumanization have a defensive function in dealing with the emotional costs in the context of rape?

Does dehumanization serve a positive function for the individual, while reducing punishment for the rape perpetrators, or reduce their support for the rape victims?

--- A bystander observing the rape.

Which is more interesting?
--- dehumanization of the Victim?
--- dehumanization of the Perpetrator?

Defensive dehumanization in the context of emotionally charged event
--- just world hypothesis predicts
--- emotion-regulation hypothesis


Feedback:
-- Cameron




Rape  context: focus on dehumanization of the rapist, and ingroup vs. outgroup related

Objectification (sexualized vs. non-sexualized woman), victim and perpetrator blaming (acquintace vs. stranger rape). 

-- What leads to dehumanization of the victim and perpetrator in a rape context? What could be the function of dehumanization in this context? 

* can be a defensive strategy? for emotional costs

* gaining control? 

* reduce fear towards ingroup (Germany) men? but to increase fear towards the outgroup (Arab) men?

* emotional distancing/less involved or justifying the rape?

 2 (objectification of victim: sexualized vs. non-sexualized) x 2 (ethnic background of the perpetrator: ingroup vs. outgroup), using a newspaper article to manipulate the rape

-- German girl raped by a German man (the sexualized/objectified woman would be blamed more and the perpetrator less) --> sexualization would matter.

-- German girl raped by a Turkish/Arab man, it would be blamed on the outgroup, and sexualization would make a less difference. 

-- Do you use dehumanization in the context of rape in order to reduce emotional costs?

-- If bystander participants are given opportunity to dehumanize, do they feel less distressing?

-- we should also look at a socially important DV = support for rape victims, or policies that reduce rape, etc. to see if while dehumanization may serve a function for the bystander, does it also lead to reduced support for policies that tackle rape or support for rape victims and punishment for perpetrators?

-- In the 2nd study, could we show that the dehumanization effect could get reduced by a news article that evokes less emotional distress

-- Dehumanization of perpetrator may have a paradox of self-serving function for the individual, but it may lead to a more negative societal consequence in the sense that you turn on a blind eye to it, and tolerate it.

--- it should be about dehumanization, but not just not perspective-taking.

Look at the two paths 

Is there a fucntion of dehumanization to deal with the emotional costs in the context of rape?

1) dehumanization of the perpetrator, and it leads to more empathy for the victim and help the victim more

2) dehumanization of the perpetrator, and it leads to less empathy for the victim and help the victim less

Empathy, contempt, disgust

Animalistically dehumanize the perpetrator, he cannot manage his sexual lust and 

if people dehumanize the perpetrator animalistically, they are also blaming the sexualized victim animalistically

STUDY IDEA - GAY MEN

Disgust toward homosexual behaviour (public kissing of gay men) may be the causal force underlying anti-gay moral attitudes (Inbar et. al., 2009)

-- hetero masculine
-- homo masculine
-- hetero feminine
-- hetero feminine

Mediators:
--- measure moral disgust (fear of contamination or male-male sex as a violation of moral purity violation)
--- measure reputation/social image concern

main DVs:
Wanting to interact with them in public (seen by others as associated to the gay man) vs. private
(need to make the public vs. private division extremely well)

HYPOTHESES:
Testing/pitting "bias-as-reputation hypothesis" vs. "bias-as-fear of contamination/violation of moral purity violation hypothesis:
PREDICTIONS:
--> if it is about reputation/social image, the aversion to interact with the target should be more pronounced in the public condition than the private condition
--> if it is about disgust (contamination/moral purity issue such as the sexual norm violation - sex can be seen as contaminating and male-male sex), aversion to interact with the target should more pronounced equally in the public and private condition
--> if reputation concern --> gender-atypical/feminine conditions (regardless of hetero and homosex) should matter more
---> if disgust/contamination/moral purity --> homosexual (regardless of feminine and masculine conditions) should matter more

EASP Summer school - Dehumanization and motivation to punish violators of honour norms

What is the role of infrahumanization (attributing less secondary emotions: the more the perpetrator feels shame, anger, humiliation, do they start seeing the target as having less of these secondary emotions such as compassion, tenderness, hope, bitterness, regret and shame, dehumanization (human nature - mechanistic dehumanization such as cold-hearted, no emotions, etc., see Kteily, Bruneau, et al., 2005), and importantly mind attribution (see Cameron et al., 2009) in motivation to punish the target who violates honour norms (female partner having an affair in public).

The victim may also be self-dehumanizing themselves (seeing as deserving.)

You can manipulate the honour violation as you did in rape study with Isabell (public, private, & control), and measure relational aggression/motivation to punish. Examine whether this is mediated by mental attribution, infrahumanization or dehumanization.

Teasing apart the femininity vs. sexual orientation in the anti-gay/femininity bias

Disgust toward homosexual behaviour (public kissing of gay men) may be the causal force underlying anti-gay moral attitudes (Inbar et. al., 2009)

-- hetero masculine
-- homo masculine
-- hetero feminine
-- hetero feminine

Mediators:
--- measure moral disgust (fear of contamination or male-male sex as a violation of moral purity violation)
--- measure reputation/social image concern

main DVs:
Wanting to interact with them in public (seen by others as associated to the gay man) vs. private
(need to make the public vs. private division extremely well)

HYPOTHESES:
Testing/pitting "bias-as-reputation hypothesis" vs. "bias-as-fear of contamination/violation of moral purity violation hypothesis:
PREDICTIONS:
--> if it is about reputation/social image, the aversion to interact with the target should be more pronounced in the public condition than the private condition
--> if it is about disgust (contamination/moral purity issue such as the sexual norm violation - sex can be seen as contaminating and male-male sex), aversion to interact with the target should more pronounced equally in the public and private condition
--> if reputation concern --> gender-atypical/feminine conditions (regardless of hetero and homosex) should matter more
---> if disgust/contamination/moral purity --> homosexual (regardless of feminine and masculine conditions) should matter more