1 / 24

INFRAHUMANIZATION

INFRAHUMANIZATION. Process by which group members tend to associate more human attributes to members of the ingroup than the outgroup. Multiculturalism and infrahumanization

cedric-greene
Download Presentation

INFRAHUMANIZATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. “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

  3. 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?

  4. Infrahumanization Process 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

  5. Infrahumanization • H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup • H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group

  6. 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

  7. Infrahumanization and CMC • H3a: more infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing outgroup • H3b: less infrahumanization in CMC than FtF when describing ingroup

  8. 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.

  9. Pilot Data: The Survey

  10. 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.

  11. Humanness vs.Valence Positive/Negative Valence

  12. 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

  13. Methodology Word Choice Paradigm Choose words that describe outgroup Choose words that describe partner

  14. Preliminary Results • For our purposes today, eight words matter • Uniquely human emotions: • hopeful, optimistic, resentful, disenchanted • Uniquely human descriptors: • civilized, educated, folksy, criminal

  15. 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

  16. Preliminary Results • Evidence of infrahumanization? Yes. H1: more infrahumanization toward outgroup than ingroup H2: less infrahumanization when describing individual partner than group

  17. 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

  18. Preliminary Results • How people viewed their ingroup

  19. Preliminary Results • How people described the outgroup

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

  21. 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?”

  22. 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)

  23. 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?

  24. Contact Information http://theingroup.wordpress.com/

More Related