Understanding infrahumanisation of outgroups in terms of the linguistic Intergroup Bias

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Investigating the role of denial of cognition, capacity for morality and perception of child-likeness in infrahumanization

Secondary emotions (for example, guilt, shame, and tenderness) are uniquely human, indicate higher cognition, moral capacity, and develop with age, compared with primary emotions (for example, pain, fear, happiness), which humans also share with animals. According to Leyers and colleagues people designate outgroups as less human, that is, infrahumanize them through ascribing them less uniquely human emotions. This paper reports two studies that examined the role of denial of cognition, capacity for morality and perception of child-likeness in denial of secondary emotions to outgroups. In Study 1, it was hypothesized that a sample of psychology students would deny secondary emotions to people with a learning disability, Down syndrome, as a function of denying them cognitive capacities, compared with people with physical disabilities and the ingroup. Study 2 tested denial of secondary emotions to the three target groups as a function of not only denial of cognition, but also of moral capacities, and a tendency to liken the mental capacities of adults to children’s. Both studies showed that only people with Down syndrome are denied secondary emotions. In Study 1, denial of secondary emotions to people with Down syndrome was mediated by denial of cognitive capacities. In Study 2, denial of secondary emotions was mediated by an average index of denial of cognitive and moral capacities, and likening mental capacities of the target groups to children’s. Both studies also showed greater denial of positive than negative secondary emotions to people with Down syndrome. Results are discussed in terms of infrahumanization theory and romanticization of learning disabilities. Implications of results to people with Down syndrome are also discussed

LOBOLA PAPER 2.sav

SPSS DATA for the Lobola 2 project</p

Exploring a linguistic intergroup bias on communication of compound-word names and acronyms among political parties

According to the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB), positive actions of ingroup members are described with more abstract predicates than those of outgroup members, whereas negative actions of ingroup members are described with more concrete predicates than those of outgroup members. The researchers extrapolated the LIB to compound-word names (for example African National Congress) and their acronymic equivalents (for example A.N.C). They theorized that compound-word names are positive abstract terms, thus, suiting description of the ingroup’s positive identity. Besides, their concrete equivalents acronyms can be easily ascribed a negative meaning and, thus, would be suitable for outgroups. Using content and discourse analysis on a sample of nine African political parties, they investigated the hypothesis that people mention a compound-word name of an ingroup more frequently than of outgroups. Results indicated that people use compound-word names more frequently than outgroups. They explained the effect as a form of a linguistic intergroup bias

An investigation of the sexist application of the morality concept of Tsika in the Shona culture of Zimbabwe

We investigated the sexist application of a morality concept of Tsika, characterized by communal traits, in the Shona culture of Zimbabwe. Tsika has been defined as “politeness, civility and circumlocution” (Samkange & Samkange, 1980, p. 74), thus generally falling under communal traits. Theoretical literature suggests that although Tsika is a cultural ideal for all Shona people, it is especially expected of women and children, and that women can be punished like children if they lack Tsika. This research tested whether Tsika would be expected more of women (and children) than men. In line with ambivalent sexism theory, it was predicted that, because Tsika is constituted of communal traits, a bias in its expectation of women over men would be predicted by benevolent sexism. Furthermore, the research tested whether women (and children) would be judged more negatively than men if they defaulted on Tsika. It was hypothesized that a more negative evaluation of women than men if they defaulted on Tsika would be predicted by hostile sexism. Results confirmed that Tsika is expected more of women than of men. Benevolent sexism and its interaction with hostile sexism predicted the bias in expectation of Tsika of women over men. Results also confirmed that women who default on Tsika are evaluated more negatively than men. Hostile sexism predicted the bias in negative evaluations of women over men who default on Tsika

Are people better at recognizing ambivalent sexism on the basis of the non-standard profiles than the standard ASI ones

Kilianski and Rudman (1998) developed “standard” profiles of a benevolent and a hostile sexist man from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and tested if a U.S. sample of female students would perceive them as referring to the same person (i.e. an ambivalent sexist). Results showed that although they appraised the benevolent sexist profile favourably, and the hostile sexist one unfavourably, they considered it unlikely that they could refer to the same man. We developed “non-standard” profiles similar to those used by Kilianski and Rudman, with the major difference that they were not made directly from the ASI, but on the basis of attitudes and actions of a realistic soap-opera character, and tested if they would be considered as referring to the same individual by a sample of 238 undergraduate students (81 males and 157 females) at the University of Zimbabwe. Our results showed that both male and female participants found it as difficult to detect ambivalent sexism on the basis of non-standard ASI profiles as on the basis of standard ASI profiles

Beyond secondary emotions: The infrahumanization of outgroups using human-related and animal-related words

This paper reports four series of studies that examined the infrahumanization effect using a different measure. Across the four studies, we examined whether people would associate their ingroup more with human- (vs. animal-) related words in comparison to outgroups. In Study 1, we used the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998) and found that participants were quicker during the compatible task (when ingroup names and human-related words shared the same response key and outgroup names and animal-related words shared the same response key) in comparison to the incompatible task. Studies 2a and 2b utilized a paper and pencil design and found that participants were more likely to link ingroup names with human-related words in comparison to the outgroup. In Studies 3a and 3b, we found that participants selected human-related words as being more characteristic of the ingroup in general than the outgroup. In Study 4, we used positive and negative words and found that participants were more likely to link human-related words with ingroup (vs. outgroup) names regardless of valence. Results are discussed in relation to their implications for infrahumanization theory