规范性的去人性化和一个真正的人的普通概念

Ben Phillips
{"title":"规范性的去人性化和一个真正的人的普通概念","authors":"Ben Phillips","doi":"10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, I presented evidence that there are two broad kinds of dehumanization: <em>descriptive dehumanization</em> and <em>normative dehumanization</em>. An individual is <em>descriptively dehumanized</em> when they are perceived as less than fully human in the biological-species sense; whereas an individual is <em>normatively dehumanized</em> when they are perceived as lacking a deep-seated commitment to good moral values. Here, I develop the concept of normative dehumanization by addressing skepticism about two hypotheses that are widely held by dehumanization researchers. The first hypothesis is that dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike and other non-dehumanizing attitudes. The second hypothesis is that dehumanization is an important predictor of intergroup hostility. Across four studies, I found evidence that normative dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike, and denials of ideal humanness. I also found that it is a unique predictor of intergroup hostility. These findings suggest that research into dehumanization and intergroup hostility will benefit from recognizing the distinction between descriptive and normative dehumanization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72748,"journal":{"name":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normative dehumanization and the ordinary concept of a true human\",\"authors\":\"Ben Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recently, I presented evidence that there are two broad kinds of dehumanization: <em>descriptive dehumanization</em> and <em>normative dehumanization</em>. An individual is <em>descriptively dehumanized</em> when they are perceived as less than fully human in the biological-species sense; whereas an individual is <em>normatively dehumanized</em> when they are perceived as lacking a deep-seated commitment to good moral values. Here, I develop the concept of normative dehumanization by addressing skepticism about two hypotheses that are widely held by dehumanization researchers. The first hypothesis is that dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike and other non-dehumanizing attitudes. The second hypothesis is that dehumanization is an important predictor of intergroup hostility. Across four studies, I found evidence that normative dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike, and denials of ideal humanness. I also found that it is a unique predictor of intergroup hostility. These findings suggest that research into dehumanization and intergroup hostility will benefit from recognizing the distinction between descriptive and normative dehumanization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in ecological and social psychology\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in ecological and social psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622723000680\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622723000680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,我提出了证据,证明有两种广泛的非人化:描述性非人化和规范性非人化。当一个人在生物物种意义上被认为不是完全的人类时,他们就会被描述为非人;而当一个人被认为缺乏对良好道德价值观的根深蒂固的承诺时,他们就会被规范地非人化。在这里,我通过解决对非人化研究人员普遍持有的两个假设的怀疑,发展了规范非人化的概念。第一个假设是,非人化与纯粹的厌恶和其他非非人化的态度不同。第二个假设是非人性化是群体间敌意的重要预测因素。在四项研究中,我发现有证据表明,规范性的非人化与纯粹的厌恶和对理想人性的否认是不同的。我还发现,它是群体间敌意的一个独特预测因子。这些发现表明,对非人性化和群体间敌意的研究将受益于认识到描述性非人性化与规范性非人性化之间的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Normative dehumanization and the ordinary concept of a true human

Normative dehumanization and the ordinary concept of a true human

Recently, I presented evidence that there are two broad kinds of dehumanization: descriptive dehumanization and normative dehumanization. An individual is descriptively dehumanized when they are perceived as less than fully human in the biological-species sense; whereas an individual is normatively dehumanized when they are perceived as lacking a deep-seated commitment to good moral values. Here, I develop the concept of normative dehumanization by addressing skepticism about two hypotheses that are widely held by dehumanization researchers. The first hypothesis is that dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike and other non-dehumanizing attitudes. The second hypothesis is that dehumanization is an important predictor of intergroup hostility. Across four studies, I found evidence that normative dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike, and denials of ideal humanness. I also found that it is a unique predictor of intergroup hostility. These findings suggest that research into dehumanization and intergroup hostility will benefit from recognizing the distinction between descriptive and normative dehumanization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
140 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信