Informal caregivers, who provide unpaid care work to individuals with disabilities, are devalued despite their important contributions to society. Identifying the factors contributing to their devaluation is crucial for recognizing and valuing their work. In two experimental studies, we examined (a) whether informal caregivers are dehumanized; (b) the moderating impact of belief in a just world (BJW) on this process; and (c) the predictive impact of BJW and the dehumanization of informal caregivers on the perception of informal caregivers’ suffering. In Study 1 (N = 180), a 2 (informal caregiver vs. non-caregiver) X 2 (female vs. male) between-participants design was used; in Study 2 (N = 205), there were two experimental conditions: female informal caregiver vs. male informal caregiver. Participants were randomly assigned to one description of a target and were asked to complete measures assessing the dehumanization of the target (Studies 1 and 2), the perception of the suffering of the target (Study 2), and a measure of BJW referring to themselves (Study 2). Results showed the expected dehumanization effect, such that participants attributed fewer uniquely human emotions to informal caregivers compared to non-caregivers, regardless of their gender (Studies 1 and 2). However, this effect was observed only among participants with higher BJW (Study 2). Furthermore, BJW and the dehumanization of informal caregivers predicted the minimization of the perception of informal caregivers’ suffering (Study 2). These results establish a theoretical relationship between these research areas and offer insights for practical implications and future research.

Research in social psychology has long argued that exposure to objectifying portrayals of women can lead to increasingly misogynist attitudes and behavior. We argue that such images can also impact on gendered policy attitudes. We suggest that objectifying images prime sexist attitudes and reduce perceptions of women’s agency, warmth, and competence. We argue that this may translate into decreased support for reproductive rights and other gender-salient policies. Furthermore, these effects may vary by the gender of those exposed to these images. In two survey experiments with brief exposures to objectifying images, we find mixed support for these predictions. Although we find some negative effects as predicted, we also find positive effects of objectification among women in the sample that are suggestive of a backlash effect. We discuss potential explanations for this heterogeneity. Overall, our results suggest interesting avenues to further explore the effects of objectification on political outcomes.

The concept of humanity has been much discussed with respect to humanitarian work and international humanitarian law. There is today an idea of a single humanity, with each member equally valued beyond superficial differences in belief, nationality, ethnicity etc., and a global legal framework exists to prevent needless human suffering, including in war.

Dehumanization arises linguistically as the negation of a common, positive and mutually supportive humanity, though there is no single definition, and it certainly predates its opposite. Research indicates that dehumanization increases the risk of conflict/violence, increases the risk of abuses therein, and makes it harder to resolve conflict.

This paper gives an overview of how humanity is currently defined and used, notably by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as one Fundamental Principle of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and what dehumanization means especially in relation to conflict and violence. The paper then explores why and how dehumanization happens and the real-world harm that can result when it is espoused or tacitly condoned by those in positions of power. Finally, the paper examines how global legal frameworks and the principle of humanity, bolstered by impartiality, independence and neutrality, in particular as enacted by the ICRC, work to curb and push back against some of the worst harms that dehumanization can cause.

This article analyzes tweets in the Turkish language from November 2020 to May 2021 in which Kurds are explicitly mentioned that feature negative animalization directed toward Kurds and pro-Kurdish organizations. It systematically compares ways of animalization attribution, to what entities the animalization is attributed mostly, and the attributors (actors) of animalization. First, it argues that animalizing dehumanization directed at Kurds in the data set principally occurs for attributing the lack of four human traits: agency, civility, morality, and rationality. Second, it shows in what different ways the lack of these traits is attributed to Kurdish people in general and to major pro-Kurdish groups such as HDP (the largest pro-Kurdish legal political party) and PKK (the largest pro-Kurdish armed group). Finally, it discloses three main political networks among Twitter users within the data set and characterizes how negative animal references to Kurds, pro-Kurdish groups, and each other were used by these actors. Thus, this research seeks to establish a framework to study other ethnic conflicts from the perspective of animalization and invites further research on whether the trends that were found imply a general tendency around the world.

Systematic killing has long been associated with some of the darkest episodes in human history. Increasingly, however, it is framed as a desirable outcome in war, particularly in the context of military AI and lethal autonomy. Autonomous weapons systems, defenders argue, will surpass humans not only militarily but also morally, enabling a more precise and dispassionate mode of violence, free of the emotion and uncertainty that too often weaken compliance with the rules and standards of war. We contest this framing. Drawing on the history of systematic killing, we argue that lethal autonomous weapons systems reproduce, and in some cases intensify, the moral challenges of the past. Autonomous violence incentivizes a moral devaluation of those targeted and erodes the moral agency of those who kill. Both outcomes imperil essential restraints on the use of military force.

Humanism is the view that people treat others inhumanely when we fail to see them as human beings, so that our treatment of them will tend to be more humane when we (fully) see their humanity. Recently, humanist views have been criticized on the grounds that the perpetrators of inhumanity regard their victims as human and treat them inhumanely partly for this reason. I argue that the two most common objections to humanist views (and their relatives) are unpersuasive: not only does the evidence marshaled against these views fail to disprove them, it could threaten them only if some questionable assumptions were granted. By providing necessary conceptual ground clearing and routing common lines of attack, I hope to determine what it would take for a humanist project to succeed, thereby paving the way for a full defense of humanism that fulfills its explanatory ambitions.

A government's decision to communicate in a native tongue rather than a commonly used and understood but non-native language can prompt perception through an ethnically-tinted lens. While native-language communication is commonplace and typically benign, we argue that conveying a threat posed by an outgroup in a native tongue can trigger dehumanizing attitudes. We conducted a pre-registered survey experiment focusing on attitudes toward Muslim and Chinese people in India to test our expectations. In our two-stage design, we randomly assigned respondents to a survey language (Hindi or English) and, after that, to threat-provoking or control conditions. While Muslims and China are associated with recent violence against India, the government has routinely portrayed only the former as threatening. Likely due to this divergence, Hindi language assignment alone triggers Muslim dehumanization. Indians' more innocuous views of Chinese are responsive to exogenously-induced threat, particularly when conveyed in Hindi.

Human beings need social group identities. These may be based on age, sex, gender and gender identity, ethnicity, religious beliefs, language, nationality and etc. In fact, in-group identities, collaborations and reference systems have positive effects on health / mental health. But, the problematic issue is the process of Othering and Dehumanization of the group designated to be the Other. Othering, rising from imagined or the expectation of generalized differences and used to distinguish groups of people as separate from the norm reinforces and maintains discrimination. Social power relations determine the stratification of ‘them’ and ‘us’. Whether a group is to be designated as the Other and labelled with prejudice will depend on the zeitgeist of the current dominant social power. Dehumanization created many tragedies via genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, and other intolerant forms of violence. Theories, generally termed as scientific racism of late 19th. & early 20th. centuries, times of colonialism, assumed that some races are inferior to others, and that differential treatment of races is consequently justified. Such approaches led to movements of unification / purification practices which cannot be legitimate and caused vast individual and institutional racial discrimination, human rights violations and violence. As a social determinant of health, racial discrimination and ethnocentrism, a powerful force that weakens human relations, continue to afflict the health and mental health conditions of people. Albeit racial discrimination, peoples of the world also have a history of effective praxis of inclusive ways of solving conflicts of interests between in-groups and out-groups.

Objectification and dehumanization are topics often discussed within the social psychology and feminist theory literature. Research on objectification has largely focused on the sexual objectification of women’s bodies, whereas the dehumanization literature has focused on dehumanization in the context of racial and ethnic groups. Extant political science research has only recently begun to engage with these concepts. In this manuscript, we build upon these literatures and apply these insights to questions relevant to politics. In particular, we argue that objectifying and dehumanizing portrayals of women impact how voters evaluate women politicians and how much they support gender parity in politics. Through a proposed experimental design, we test our hypothesis that the objectification of women as a group can decrease positive evaluations and likelihood of electoral support for women political candidates.