Notes on Dehumanization

Individualswho are perceived as deviant (Vasiljevic &
Viki, 2014) or as lacking in normative standards (e.g.,
moral values) are more likely to be the target of dehumanization
(Brandt & Reyna, 2011; Haslam et al.,
2011). Thus, we argue that homophobic epithets, compared
with category labels and generic insults should
elicit dehumanization of male homosexuals. That is,
homophobic language does not only disparage gay
men but also places the spotlight on them as deviants,
exposing them to dehumanization. Those who are perceived
as violating values, especially in-group values
(Greenhalgh & Watt, 2014), or behaving in an antinormative
manner are indeed appraised as less human
(Vasiljevic & Viki, 2014).

In our work, we test whether homophobic epithets
lead to a denial of uniquely human qualities (Haslam,
2006), a form of dehumanization associated with viewing
others as more like animals. Specifically, we expect
that priming participants with homophobic epithets
should decrease the attribution of these uniquely
human characteristics to gay men.

Previous research has shown that
people tend to maintain physical distance toward individuals
labeled as deviant, perceived as dissimilar
and negatively stereotyped (Heinemann, Pellander,
Vogelbusch, & Wojtek, 1981; Macrae, Bodenhausen,
Milne, & Jetten, 1994; Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis,
2005; Snyder & Endelman, 1979). Moreover, physical
distancing is a way to protect the self from physical
and psychological contagion (Kurzban & Leary,
2001; Park, Faulkner, & Schaller, 2003). In this
regard, it should be noted that some authors have
argued that anti-gay prejudice is related to perceived
threat to heterosexuals’ health and values (Cottrell &
Neuberg, 2005). This fear of contagion at the psychological
level as well as at the physical level should be
particularly salient in heterosexuals when gay men
are labeled in a disparaging way. This is because homophobic
epithets can stress gay deviance, and thus
the “threat” that gay men pose. Hence, compared
with category labels or generic insults, we expect
homophobic epithets to be more likely to induce
physical distancing from a gay man.

Participants Section with Apriori or Posthoc Power Analysis using G Power

Method 
Participants 
We recruited 173 participants (85 female, 88 male, Mage ¼ 37.00 years, SDage ¼ 13.92 years) for US$0.50 on MTurk. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (stigma: high, low) 2(suffering intensity: high, low) between-subjects design. Power analysis using G*Power 3.1 revealed that to find a comparable stigma effect to the pilot study (d ¼ .37) with 80% power and a one-tailed probability of .05, the required sample size is n ¼ 184.

from:

Cameron, C. D., Harris, L. T., & Payne, B. K. (2015). The Emotional Cost of Humanity Anticipated Exhaustion Motivates Dehumanization of Stigmatized Targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550615604453.

AMAZING IDEA - TEST THIS!!! FEELING DISRESPECT WHEN HONOUR WAS DESERVED VS. HONOUR WAS NOT DESERVED

Honor is another concept which partially overlaps with the meaning of “respect.” Honor refers to an actor’s public reputation based on her public compliance with the code of a particular status group. Typically it entails norms mandating honesty, courage, calm composure, or generosity (Berger, 1970; Lebow, 2008: chap. 2; Offer, 1995). The experience of disrespect, by contrast, largely depends on the relationship between others’ behavior and one’s own subjective expectations, in particular to one’s own standards of social worth and importance. Honor is based on the opinion of the broader social environment; it is not a specific attitude which a particular actor is supposed to display in a specific social encounter. In contrast, the experience of respect and disrespect intrinsically depends on an actor’s subjective sense of her self-worth and -importance. Accordingly, in some instances an actor may not feel disrespected even though somebody has tarnished her honor (or reputation or prestige): for instance, if she is well aware of the fact that the honor she publicly enjoyed was actually based on fraud or cover-up.

Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition. International Theory, 3(1), 105-142.

Mplus code for mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation models

http://offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/mplusmedmod.htm

FYP Research Projecs

Adrianna, you were missing today, but not to worry. We discussed some ideas about a potential project on masculine honour, which each of you can tackle from different angles. The overarching idea that we came up with is to show that the social context (particularly, high violence and conflicts) is important in increasing value/preference for more traditional honour-related qualities in men (toughness, bravery, ability to defend himself, and protect others close to him). 

So far we thought of looking at 1) whether women rate honour-related traits and behaviors as more important in men as sexual/romantic mates, 2) whether women (and men) prefer to raise their sons with more honour-related traits and qualities when there is more violence and potential for threats from outsiders versus when there is not (in a peaceful context). We can run projects along these ideas.

As promised, I am sending you the primary readings on masculine and culture of honour threat. These can help you familiarize with the topic and the background of our project. 

In the book pdf that I attached by Vandello & Cohen (2004) chapter 12, search for the chapter titled When Believing Is Seeing: Sustaining Norms of Violence in Cultures of Honor.

Also question marks before the article names do not mean anything.

We will meet all of us again in September, and hopefully set up the studies on Qualtrics for data collection ideally in October. 

-----------------------------------NOTES----------------------------------------

Need to measure perceived salience (high vs. low) threat after threat of violence manipulation.

Check Immo.Frietsche@uni-leipzig.de

Authrotarian responses to threat do not genuinely reflect political conservativism: why and when the paris bombings motivated protests for liberalism and intergroup tolerance

SHORT STUDY IDEA - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND MASC. & FEM. HONOUR IN TURKEY AND ENGLAND

Dear Ayse,

I found a new honour scale here, and I attached it here for you as you may want to keep it too.

Some study ideas came to my mind after being inspired of short one study papers. For instance, the paper by Sheida Novin and colleagues talk about self-esteem and honour, but they haven't measured masculine and feminine honour which they are point out in their future research suggestions. We have data on this already from the Mass Test data, and I did some correlational analysis on this with White-British participants, which had quite interesting results.

*** Results with White-UK/Irish participants (We measured integrity, family, feminine and masculine honour concerns with Patricia's scale:

- Interestingly, masculine honour and self-esteem correlated negatively for males, but positive for females. 

- No other Honour measure correlated with self-esteem for males. For females, integrity honour and family honour were also positive correlated.

I ran the correlations also with non-White British/Irish and non-White European, and other non-White participants, this data had mainly Indian, Pakistani, Bengladeshi, Asian and Black participants, and even though the number of males were so low (N = 9), masculine, family and integrity honour correlated very strongly with self-esteem scale for males, and feminine honour correlated significantly for females. 

I thought we could collect data from Turkey too, and maybe we could publish a short paper out of this. I think the negative significant correlation with self-esteem and masculine honour for white-British participants is interesting.

I had one more idea, to look at different appraisals of shame in a low-honour and a high-honour culture. That idea came from Gausel and Leach's study published on GPIR special issue on Social Image.

Maybe these ideas can stay in the drawer for now, but I thought how easy and quick it would be to publish one-study papers. Neat and focused with short Intro's and Discussions :)

See you tomorrow at our lab meeting.

Best,

Pelin

SHORT STUDY IDEA - APPRAISALS OF SHAME IN AN HONOUR VS. DIGNITY CULTURE

inspiration source: Gausel, N., & Leach, C. W. (2011). Concern for self‐image and social image in the management of moral failure: Rethinking shame. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 468-478.

Dear Ayse,

I think I got inspired by one study short paper because of their efficiency in little time and effort, and I think now I'm primed with thinking about a basic study that can advance theory.

Idea for a cross-cultural study in a honour vs. dignity culture, looking at how moral failures are related to perceptions' of others' condemnation (social image concern) or one's self-defect (self-image concern), and how much shame and rejection this would cause. In this case audience (public vs. private) can also be manipulated and it may work (I got the idea after Gausel & Leach's paper published in the GPIR special issue - They showed appraising shame through self-defect evokes feelings of shame, while appraising shame through other's condemnation evokes feelings of rejection).

Prediction: 
Testing the mechanism from moral failure to experiences of shame. In an honor culture, people may tend to appraise their shame experiences based on other's condemnation (more than self-condemnation).
One would expect that in Turkey (honor culture, with its cultural sensitivity to social image concerns), people would tend to appraise their shame based on other's condemnation (social image concern) after a moral failure more than people in England (dignity), and both groups of people would feel more shame about their moral failure. So the results/strength of the path from moral failure to shame may differ in both cultures, and this could be moderated by Public/Private moral failure.

Moral failure can be lying or not being honest to a friend, or hurting them (since care and fairness are universal moral failures).

Culture and Public/Private would be moderators, of the mediation model:

IV = moral failure 

2 Mediators = other's condemnation & self-condemnation

DV = feeling shame or feeling rejected