How meta-humanization leads to conciliatory attitudes but not intergroup negotiation: The mediating roles of attribution of secondary emotions and blatant dehumanization

Abstract

Relations between groups are particularly sensitive in post-conflict societies where tensions persist, and reconciliation remains unlikely. The present research investigated whether believing or learning that an outgroup humanizes the ingroup (i.e., meta-humanization) enhances conciliatory attitudes and intergroup negotiations. In three studies conducted in the post-conflict context of Kosovo (N = 1,407), we investigated whether meta-humanization, in comparison to meta-dehumanization (i.e., the belief that outgroups dehumanize the ingroup) or a control condition wherein no information related to (de)humanization is provided, impacts various intergroup outcomes through the attribution of secondary emotions (i.e., the tendency to deny outgroups the capability to experience human emotions) and blatant dehumanization (i.e., the tendency to overtly or explicitly regard outgroup members as being less than fully human). Using correlational data, Study 1 revealed that blatant dehumanization, but not the attribution of secondary emotions, mediated the effect of meta-humanization on conciliatory attitudes, including support for the outgroup, openness to future contact, and feelings of peace with outgroup members. However, this pattern did not extend to intergroup negotiation, as none of the indirect effects through both the attribution of secondary emotions and blatant dehumanization were significant. Using experimental data, Study 2 demonstrated that participants in the meta-humanization condition exhibited lower levels of blatant dehumanization towards the outgroup, increased support for the outgroup, greater openness to intergroup contact, and reported feeling more at peace with outgroup members compared to those in both the meta-dehumanization and control conditions. However, participants in the meta-dehumanization and control conditions showed greater support for intergroup negotiation than those in the meta-humanization condition. Moreover, Study 2 indicated that blatant dehumanization, rather than the attribution of secondary emotions, mediated the effect of meta-humanization on all these outcomes—except for intergroup negotiations. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings observed in Study 2 regarding the effect of meta-humanization (vs. meta-dehumanization and control) on conciliatory attitudes and intergroup negotiation while controlling for meta-prejudice. Furthermore, Study 3 revealed that both blatant dehumanization and the attribution of secondary emotions mediated the effects of meta-humanization on all these outcomes. In sum, this set of studies shows that meta-humanization promotes reconciliation, especially via reduced blatant dehumanization, but these beneficial effects do not extend to support for intergroup negotiation.