Blatant Dehumanization is Not Influenced by Dual Identity Labels: Evidence from the Canadian Context

Blatant dehumanization has been shown to be prevalent in modern society. However, little work has explored the possible ways in which blatant dehumanization may be attenuated. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by exploring if activating a dual identity attenuates (or even erases) blatant dehumanization. To investigate these issues, Canadian participants completed the “Ascent of Man” scale, rating various groups in terms of their perceived evolutionary qualities. Half of our participants saw labels with the qualifier “-Canadians” attached, while the other half saw no such qualifier. Results showed that, regardless of whether the “-Canadians” label was provided, participants rated Filipinos, Christians, Arabs, Muslims, and Indigenous groups as significantly lower than Whites on the evolution scale. As such, provision of the additional group label “-Canadians” did not influence the manifestation of blatant dehumanization. We also found that ratings on the evolution scale significantly correlated with both Social Dominance Orientation and Empathic Concern levels, such that stronger adherence to current power structures and social hierarchies showed stronger blatant dehumanization, while those with a high pre-disposition for altruistic behaviours and emotions showed weaker blatant dehumanization. We discuss our results in the light of other research on blatant dehumanization and intergroup processes.  

Who is it okay to punch?

A popular contemporary meme involves the social acceptability of “punching Nazis.” This phenomenon raises the question: what characteristics make a group or member of a group more or less “punch-able”? More broadly, what group attributes yield support for physical violence against them? In this study, we build on the extant psychology literature on intergroup processes to look at what leads individuals to find physical violence against a group acceptable, and if the factors that lead to such acceptance differ from those that lead to sheer affective intolerance. We use two experimental tasks to test expectations built on prominent theories. In a “real-world rating task,” participants evaluated a series of real-world groups and individuals with varying characteristics such as race, ideology, intelligence, warmth, and tendency toward violence. Also, in a conjoint experiment, participants chose between two groups in terms of which they would support being punched, as various attributes were manipulated such as race, expressed ideological values, partisanship, income, tendency toward violence, and being described as disgusting or threatening. We find consistent support for effects of political alignment (particularly, expressed ideological values related to dominance) and perceived tendency toward violence, as well as mixed findings for race and several other factors. These findings synthesize theories on intergroup conflict with contemporary findings on affective polarization.

Working Across Faultlines—Assessing Intersubgroup Communication in Teams

Communication between different subgroups is essential to group success, as different perspectives and knowledge need to be integrated. Especially when subgroups form due to faultlines, hypothetical dividing lines splitting a group into homogeneous subgroups, the resulting subgroups are vulnerable to negative intergroup processes. In this article, we evaluate different methods that have been used to trace communication between faultline-based subgroups and discuss challenges that researchers face when applying those methods. We further present the faultline communication index (FCI) as a novel approach to meet those challenges. We combine techniques from social network analysis with a behavioral process approach to trace communication processes between subgroups and provide scholars with tools to integrate in their own research. We illustrate this approach by observing and coding real time interactions in 29 organizational meetings. Results show that although functional faultline strength does not impact information exchange between subgroups, intersubgroup interactions positively relate to the quality of action plans defined at the end of a meeting. Managers and practitioners who work with diverse teams can be given guidance on how communication between subgroups evolves and how it can be shaped to become more effective. We further discuss implications for future research on communication between subgroups.

Intelligence Studies, Theory, and Intergroup Conflict and Resolution

The study of intelligence traditionally relies on descriptive and case study approaches. However, the study of intelligence should shift from this reliance on case study approaches to one grounded in multidisciplinary theory. In particular, social psychological approaches should be fully integrated into an intelligence studies curriculum. These theories inform our understanding of intergroup processes, specifically intergroup conflict, so that we can begin to develop appropriate conflict resolution strategies.

Intergroup Processes

This chapter reviews individual and contextual processes that explain why prejudice exists in diverse societies and what processes and strategies can contribute to its reduction. The first half of the chapter discusses origins and definitions of intergroup prejudice, along with ideological and structural factors that support the endurance of intergroup prejudice, such as authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and patterns of social segregation. The second half discusses strategies and processes involved in prejudice reduction, with a particular emphasis on those derived from intergroup contact theory, including situational conditions, social categorization, cross-group friendships, and motivational processes such as anxiety reduction and empathy. Taken together, this chapter highlights that prejudice and its diminution are best understood when individual and contextual factors, and their interaction, are jointly employed to illuminate negative and positive intergroup relations between groups.