1 / 16

Perceived threat and dehumanization of ethnic minorities

Perceived threat and dehumanization of ethnic minorities. An experimental investigation Afrodita Marcu Supervisors: Dr Evanthia Lyons & Dr Peter Hegarty University of Surrey S ocial P sychology E uropean R esearch I nstitute. Theoretical background.

kanan
Download Presentation

Perceived threat and dehumanization of ethnic minorities

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. Perceived threat anddehumanization of ethnic minorities An experimental investigation Afrodita Marcu Supervisors: Dr Evanthia Lyons & Dr Peter Hegarty University of Surrey Social Psychology European Research Institute

  2. Theoreticalbackground • Prejudice against out-groups is not just evaluative but also semantic-anthropological (Moscovici and Pérez, 1997, Pérez, Chulvi and Alonso, 2001) • Semantic-anthropological discrimination = judging others in terms of animal (“natural”) but not human (“cultural”) characteristics

  3. Primary and secondaryemotions (Leyens et al) ► infrahumanization primary emotions are common to animals and humans (e.g.fear) while secondary emotions are exclusively human (e.g. nostalgia) primary emotions to both in-group and out-group secondary emotions to in-group only Natural and culturaltraits (Pérez et al) ►ontologization natural traits are common to animals and humans (e.g. dirty) while cultural traits are uniquely human (e.g. hypocrite) natural traits to out-group cultural traits to in-group only Measures of Dehumanization

  4. Potential functions ofDehumanization • denying similarities between in-group and out-group • maintaining a positive self-image • maintaining a high status and a privileged position • justifying oppression • justifying aggression

  5. Multiculturalism and dehumanization • In a multicultural society, ethnic minorities may be dehumanized because they are perceived as not being socially integrated • studies have found that Gypsies (Roma minority) are dehumanized across Europe: Spain (Pérez, Chulvi & Alonso, 2001), Britain and Romania (Marcu & Chryssochoou, 2005)

  6. ResearchAims • Examine whether cultural differences between majority and ethnic minorities will lead to their dehumanization • Examine whether the ethnic minorities’ economic success or failure will lead to their dehumanization • Assess the two measures of dehumanization, infrahumanization, in terms of emotions, and ontologization, in terms of traits

  7. Hypotheses • ethnic minorities perceived to be culturally different from the majority will be more dehumanized than ethnic minorities perceived to be culturally similar to the majority • ethnic minorities perceived to be poor will be more dehumanized than ethnic minorities perceived to be rich

  8. Method and participants • pilot study: 68 participants with a mean age of 22 rated the humanity and the positivity of a selected list of emotions and traits • on the basis of the percentage of participants who rated the emotions and traits as human and as positive, respectively, each emotion and trait was attributed a humanity and positivity score

  9. The experiment • 121 participants, 42 males and 79 females. Mean age of 20.80, range of 16 to 56 years • 4 experimental conditions in a 2 (culturally similar or different ethnic minority) x 2 (rich or poor ethnic minority) design • Participants read a vignette and completed measures of infrahumanization and ontologization

  10. The experiment • Target out-group: a fictitious ethnic minority in Britain, the Moravians, described in a short vignette in a questionnaire • in 2 conditions: the Moravians are culturally similar to the British, either rich or poor • in 2 conditions: the Moravians are culturally different from the British, either rich or poor

  11. Emotions attributed to out-group and in-group

  12. Traits attributed to out-group and in-group

  13. Human traits to out-groups • no main effect of the targets’ culture • main effect of the targets’ economic status: the poor ethnic minorities were more dehumanized, M = 44.54, than the rich ones, M = 55.12

  14. Positive traits to out-groups • more positive traits to culturally similar out-groups, M = 88.05, than to culturally different out-groups, M = 79.91 • more positive traits to the rich out-groups, M = 86.49, than to the poor out-groups, M = 81.78

  15. Conclusions -1- • Infrahumanization, as a measure of dehumanization, may not be as reliable as ontologization • Dehumanization seems to be a particular type of prejudice which occurs independently of other forms of prejudice, such as blatant prejudice or in-group bias in resource allocation to in-group and out-group

  16. Conclusion -2- • The economic status of ethnic minorities seems to have a stronger influence on dehumanization than their cultural status • British people may be more sensitive to the economic than to the cultural status of ethnic minorities: identical study in Romania found significant main effects of both cultural and economic status on dehumanization • A multicultural state may predispose individuals to more cultural tolerance, but still leave them vulnerable to economic prejudice

More Related