The association between dehumanization and intimate partner abuse

Abstract

Despite the role that dehumanization is thought to play in facilitating maltreatment toward others, there is a dearth of research regarding the extent to which the perpetration of dehumanization is associated with intimate partner abuse. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to delineate the longitudinal association between the perpetration of dehumanization and the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships. Latent growth curve modeling was used to determine whether the trajectory (i.e., intercept and slope) of dehumanization across a 6-week period predicted changes in the perpetration of abuse. It was found that a cubic nonlinear increase in dehumanization perpetration (defined by a combination of small decreases and large upsurges) was positively associated with increases in both outcome variables (i.e., emotional and physical abuse). This work directly affirms theory and past empirical evidence that dehumanization is a factor that facilitates the maltreatment of others in the form of abuse. The findings extend on past research by suggesting that the maltreatment of others by way of dehumanization is not confined to intergroup contexts, but rather, can be perpetrated against those whom we regard as our most intimate and closest of ties.

Keywords

Abuse dehumanization interpersonal relationships maltreatment

“The only bond worth anything between human beings is their humanness.”
Jesse Owens, 1936 As underscored in the quote above, there exists an understanding (both in lay and academic perspectives) that the extent to which individuals perceive one another as fully human has consequences for how others are inevitably treated. The focus in this article on dehumanization (i.e., treating or perceiving another as less than human; Haslam, 2006) reflects the increasing emphasis on studying this phenomenon in interpersonal contexts, but also represents an important theorized mechanism that may assist in explaining partner maltreatment (specifically, emotional and physical abuse). Indeed, past research has highlighted that dehumanization reduces pro-social behavior (Vaes, Paladino, & Leyens, 2002), while recent work has demonstrated that perceptions of an outgroup as less than human (relative to one’s ingroup) increases the likelihood of aggression against others (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017).

Put simply, dehumanization refers to the perception or treatment of another person as lacking human qualities (Bain, Vaes, & Leyens, 2014; Haslam, 2006; Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016). Relevant to the present study, dehumanization is theorized to be an important factor that allows for an individual or group to be maltreated (Bandura, 1999; Haslam, 2015). Despite the role that dehumanization is thought to play in facilitating maltreatment (such as abuse) or aggression toward others, there is a dearth of research regarding the extent to which the perpetration of dehumanization is associated with intimate partner abuse (a form of maltreatment [Higgins & McCabe, 2000]). Furthermore, research is yet to investigate whether people’s perpetration of intimate partner abuse over time is predicted by the extent to which they also engage in dehumanization. This article, therefore, reports on a longitudinal investigation of whether the change in one’s perpetration of dehumanization over time is associated with changes in one’s perpetration of emotional and physical abuse.

Dehumanization

Dehumanization is defined as perceiving an individual or group as lacking qualities that are uniquely or essentially human—qualities that separate humans from nonhuman entities, such as animals or inanimate objects (e.g., robots and machines; Bain et al., 2014; Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016; Haslam, Loughnan, & Holland, 2013). According to Haslam (2006), humans are distinguished from animals on attributes involving intelligence, civility, competence, and social refinement, and differ from inanimate objects—such as machines and robots—on the basis of emotionality and interpersonal warmth. When human uniqueness attributes are denied, people are dehumanized in the way that they are likened to animals and seen as primitive, childlike, irrational, or unintelligent (Bain, Park, Kwok, & Haslam, 2009; Haslam, 2006). When human nature attributes are denied, people are dehumanized in the way that they are likened to inanimate objects or preprogrammed machines, and seen as cold, rigid, or lacking emotion (Bastian & Haslam, 2011; Haslam, 2006). Thus, dehumanization occurs when an individual’s treatment or perception of another entails either the denial of human uniqueness, human nature, or both.

Historically, the study of dehumanization has largely occurred within the contexts of intergroup conflicts (Haslam, 2015) and blatant acts of atrocity (e.g., the Jewish Holocaust or the Boko Haram violence in Nigeria; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Haslman & Stratemeyer, 2016; Kelman, 1973; Staub, 1989). More recent research, however, has also suggested that dehumanization can occur within daily social interactions (Bastian, Jetten, & Haslam, 2014)—in which people routinely act in ways that benefit themselves while causing harm to others (Bandura, 1999). Nevertheless, none of this research investigated dehumanization within the context of intimate close relations (such as people’s romantic relationships). Thus, our understanding to date regarding the associations between dehumanization and serious maltreatments such as abuse is confined to the intergroup literature and social psychology more generally (e.g., Haslam, 2015; Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016; Kteily & Bruneau, 2017).

According to past and current lines of intergroup and social psychology research, the tendency to dehumanize is associated with enacting violence and aggression by deeming hostile or aggressive impulses as more acceptable (Kelman, 1973; Staub, 1989). Therefore—largely because the target of the dehumanization is perceived to be expendable—harming the dehumanized target by ways of aggression and abuse is regarded as acceptable by the perpetrator (Opotow, 1990). Furthermore, because the target of dehumanization is perceived as lacking human qualities (in particular the capacity to experience emotions) perpetrators are less likely to experience empathic distress or guilt (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014) and less likely to condemn oneself for immoral, aggressive, or abusive acts (Haslam, 2015). In summary, dehumanization enables the perpetrator to act abusively and violently because they perceive the target of dehumanization to be someone who is less than human and inferior, and thus not worthy of moral consideration or respectful treatment.

Interpersonal dehumanization and intimate partner abuse

To view and treat another individual as less than human may sound extreme, however, the phenomenon has consistently been shown to be common and widespread (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Indeed, theory and research suggest that dehumanization can manifest in relatively implicit forms within everyday social interactions, rather than limited to the occurrence of moral atrocities, such as mass violence or genocide (see Haslam, 2006; Leyens et al., 2000). More recently, a number of studies have shown that within interpersonal contexts, dehumanization is in fact a commonplace phenomenon that is perpetrated by close others (such as romantic partners, family, and friends) and associated with interpersonal maltreatments (e.g., being degraded, demoralized, or invalidated; Adams, 2014; Bastian & Haslam, 2010, 2011; Bastian et al., 2014; Bastian, Jetten, & Radke, 2012; Pizzirani & Karantzas, 2018; Pizzirani, Karantzas, & Mullins, 2018). For example, Bastian and Haslam (2011) found that a number of common interpersonal maltreatments (e.g., being treated with contempt, condescension, and everyday thoughtlessness) were experienced as dehumanizing, and that the dehumanization encompassed both the denials of human nature and human uniqueness.

However, the vast majority of research into dehumanization within interpersonal contexts has not specifically focused on romantic relationships. Furthermore, while some researchers allude to an association between dehumanization and intimate partner abuse (e.g., Bastian et al., 2014), only one publication has provided empirical evidence for this association (Pizzirani et al., 2018). Specifically, in a recent series of studies, Pizzirani, Karantzas, and Mullins (2018) found that the perpetration of dehumanization was positively associated with the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse. These initial bivariate correlations provide proof-of-concept that dehumanization is indeed associated with relationship behaviors that extend into the realm of intimate partner maltreatment and abuse. This work, however, merely reflects one set of findings, and the associations evidenced between the perpetration of dehumanization and emotional and physical abuse were cross-sectional in nature. Therefore, attempts at replicating these associations are necessary to not only determine the consistency of these findings, but to provide some sense of the directionality of these associations. To this end, research should not limit the study of dehumanization and intimate partner abuse to cross-sectional designs; rather, the longitudinal associations between these variables should be estimated by way of prospective methodologies. Investigating the association between these variables over time is also necessary for two additional reasons central to the study of dehumanization and to the study of romantic relationships.

Firstly, much of the thinking around dehumanization implies that dehumanization is an impelling factor that may lead an individual to engage in the maltreatment of others in the form of aggression, violence, or abuse (e.g., Haslam, 2015; Kelman, 1973; Opotow, 1990; Staub, 1989). However, other scholars have conceptualized dehumanization as a post facto phenomenon occurring after an individual engages in maltreatment (e.g., as a way of morally disengaging from the abuse of another; Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996). Thus, research (by way of experimental and longitudinal studies) is required in order to better understand the association between dehumanization and abusive and/or aggressive behavior.

Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that many relational phenomena are dynamic in nature (e.g., Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson, & Swanson, 2002; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). For instance, numerous studies have found that positive relationship behaviors (e.g., responsiveness and social support; Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, 2010) as well as negative relationship behaviors (e.g., destructive conflict patterns; Holley, 2011; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan, 1994) demonstrate change or fluctuations over time. Moreover, research has demonstrated that changes within one relationship phenomenon are associated with fluctuations within another relationship phenomenon—whether it be relationship behavior, cognition, or affect (e.g., Gottman et al., 2002). For example, Rubin and Campbell (2012) found that changes in intimacy were associated with fluctuations in relationship passion and sexual intercourse on a given day.

Within the context of this study, such change dynamics are also likely to apply to phenomena such as dehumanization and intimate partner abuse. Although longitudinal research into the perpetration of both these phenomena is largely nonexistent, implicit and explicit thinking in relation to both constructs suggests that dehumanization and intimate partner abuse are likely to demonstrate instability (e.g., Buckels & Trapnell, 2013; Fasoli, et al., 2016; Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990; Gwinn, Judd, & Park, 2013; Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016). That is, these phenomena are likely to include some degree of variability due to various contextual factors (e.g., an atmosphere of high couple conflict) and individual difference variables (i.e., dark triad/tetrad traits, see Bastian, this issue; Kteily, Bruneau, Waytz, & Cotterill, 2015) that may increase or attenuate tendencies to dehumanize another (for review, see Kteily & Bruneau, 2017) or perpetrate intimate partner abuse. In this way, studying changes in these variables over time as well as the change dynamics between these variables (i.e., how change in one variable is associated with change in another variable) is critical in understanding whether there is a particular trajectory of dehumanization that impels an individual to escalate the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse of one’s partner over time.

Current study

For centuries, scholars have noted how the denial of humanness can lead to the immoral or deprecating treatment of others (e.g., Allport, 1954/1979; Haslam, 2006, 2015; Kant, 1786/1991; Kelman, 1973; Kteily & Bruneau, 2017; Opotow, 1990; Staub, 1989). This enduring understanding of dehumanization highlights how the phenomenon may function as a predictor of violent, aggressive, and abusive acts (Haslam, 2015; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Nevertheless, there exists little by way of longitudinal research to determine the extent to which dehumanization is indeed a predictor of maltreatment. Furthermore, there is a dearth of research investigating whether the perpetration of dehumanization is associated with intimate partner abuse—a form of maltreatment specific to the context of romantic relationships. To address these limitations, the aim of the current study was to delineate the longitudinal association between the perpetration of dehumanization and the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships. In particular, the current investigation focuses on how change, specifically increases, in dehumanization perpetration over time is associated with changes (i.e., increases) in the perpetration of emotional and physical intimate partner abuse.

Our primary prediction, based on prior research linking dehumanization to acts of aggression and abuse (REF), was that increases in dehumanization perpetration would predict increases in intimate partner maltreatment (i.e., increases in emotional and physical abuse over time). Given that no previous research has investigated the trajectory of dehumanization perpetration, and that the phenomenon may demonstrate fluctuation over time, our secondary prediction was that dehumanization would demonstrate a nonlinear increase over time. Unlike our primary prediction which was conformational in nature, our secondary prediction was exploratory in that different trajectories of change (linear vs. nonlinear [i.e., quadratic and cubic functions]) would need to be contrasted to determine the particular trajectory that best characterized the data.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 174 participants (27% men, 72% women, 1% gender not specified) recruited online (using social networking sites such as Facebook, Gumtree, and Reddit) from Australia (50%), the U.S. (43%), Canada (6%), and New Zealand (1%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 years (M = 28.13, SD = 8.69) and were all currently in a romantic relationship (M = 4.87 years, SD = 6.60). Relationship status consisted of participants who were steadily dating (45%), cohabiting (21%), engaged (8%), and married (26%). Participants were not compensated for their participation.

Materials and procedure

Across a period of 2 months, participants completed eight surveys (one survey per week; Time 1 [T1] to Time 8 [T8]) as part of an online longitudinal study. The surveys, which took approximately 5 min to complete on each occasion, consisted of a series of demographic questions and self-report measures. The weekly online questionnaires were administered to participants by way of an e-mail that included a URL link to the respective weekly survey to be completed. The measures included across the weekly surveys are described below.

Demographics (collected at T1 only)

Included general questions concerning the participant’s age, gender, country of residence, relationship status, and relationship length.

Dehumanization (collected at T2 to T7)

To assess the extent to which participants dehumanized their romantic partner, the perpetration version of the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS; Pizzirani et al., 2018) was administered. The measure consists of 12 items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and includes items such as “I treated my partner as cold” and “I treated my partner as if they can’t manage on their own.” The DIRRS can be used to calculate broad subscales of dehumanization (e.g., denial of human nature and denial of human uniqueness) as well as facets nested within these broad subscales (see Pizzirani et al., 2018). However, these subscales can also be aggregated to form a total (i.e., global) score for dehumanization perpetration (Pizzirani et al., 2018). Higher scores at the subscale and global scale level reflect greater dehumanization perpetration. Within the present study, global scores for dehumanization were calculated for surveys T2 to T7 (αs = .85–.86).

Emotional abuse (collected at T1 and T8)

Participants completed the perpetration version of the restrictive engulfment (7-items) and dominance/intimidation (7-items) subscales of the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (Murphy, Hoover, & Taft, 1999) in order to provide an assessment of emotional abuse. Participants were required to rate the emotional abuse items in terms of the number of times they had abused their partner in the past 6 months (i.e., 0 [never in the past 6 months] to 6 [>20 times]). Items include statements such as, “Drove recklessly to frighten them” and “Tried to stop them from seeing certain friends or family members.” Items across subscales are summed to create a total emotional abuse score, with higher scores indicating greater perpetration of emotional abuse (α = .75).

Physical abuse (collected at T1 and T8)

Participants also completed the perpetration version of the overt physical violence (7-items) and restrictive violence (3-items) subscales of the Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scale (AIRS; Borjesson, Aarons, & Dunn, 2003). Participants were asked to indicate how often they engaged in physically abusive behaviors in their current romantic relationship on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Items include statements such as “I have physically attacked my partner” and “I have used an object to hit my partner.” The two subscales are aggregated to form a total physical abuse score, with higher scores indicative of greater perpetration of physical abuse (α = .90).

Data analysis

Latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) was used to model whether the trajectory (initial level [i.e., intercept] and rate of change [i.e., slope] of dehumanization across T2 to T7) predicted changes in the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse measured at T1 (i.e., baseline) and T8 (i.e., final survey assessment). Two separate LGCMs were conducted, one in which change in emotional abuse was the outcome variable, and another in which change in physical abuse was the outcome variable. Figure 1 illustrates an example of the LGCMs tested. As shown, the T2 to T7 assessments of dehumanization are modeled to load onto an intercept and a slope latent factor, respectively. Given that the intercept reflects the initial levels of dehumanization perpetration, all loadings are scaled to unity (i.e., 1), while the slope values reflect parameters that indicate a particular rate of change. The values depicted in Figure 1, for example, reflect a linear change (i.e., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), and thus assumes that dehumanization would increase uniformly over time. In order to determine the most appropriate rate of change for dehumanization perpetration, we conducted preliminary analyses in which we tested and compared three trajectories of change (i.e., increases over time¹)—a linear trajectory and two nonlinear trajectories—quadratic and cubic. Across all models, the covariance between the slope and intercept was freely estimated. This was based on the assumption that an individual’s baseline level of dehumanization perpetration (i.e., the intercept) would be associated with changes in their dehumanization perpetration over time (i.e., rate of change/slope). For example, an individual with a high intercept value is less likely to demonstrate an increase over time at the same rate as an individual with a low intercept value.

Figure 1.
Latent growth curve model showing the trajectory of dehumanization predicting changes in the perpetration of abuse.

Once the rate of change that best fit the data was identified, emotional and physical abuse were regressed onto the latent growth curve for dehumanization. As illustrated in Figure 1, given that physical and emotional abuse were collected at two time points, we modeled change over time by way of a latent change score (LCS; Coman et al., 2013). The LCS is analogous to a paired samples t-test, in which the regression paths from T1 abuse and the change score latent variable to T8 abuse are scaled to unity (1), while the intercept for abuse at T8 is set to zero, as are the mean and variance of the residual error for abuse at T8. This parameterization of the LCS implies that scores for emotional or physical abuse at T8 are explained as a function of the LCS.

Results

A series of preliminary LGCMs were conducted (without the LCS for emotional and physical abuse) in order to determine the trajectory that best fit dehumanization perpetration across T2 to T7. Assessment of model fit was based on the guidelines proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999). Therefore, a model with a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥.95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05, and standardized root mean residual (SRMR) ≤.06 was indicative of very good fit. The application of a linear pattern for the slope of dehumanization resulted in a model of modest fit χ²(3) = 10.669, p > .05; CFI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.112; SRMR = 0.052. Similarly, the application of a quadratic trajectory also resulted in a model of modest fit χ²(3) = 11.222, p > .05; CFI = 0.923; RMSEA = 0.126; SRMR = 0.054. Finally, the application of a cubic pattern resulted in a model that demonstrated excellent fit to the data χ²(3) = 4.881, p > .05; CFI = 0.981; RMSEA = 0.060; SRMR = 0.018. Comparison across the three models of imposed trajectories on the basis of the CFI (see recommendations, Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) revealed that the cubic trajectory was of better fit to the data than both the linear trajectory model (ΔCFI = 0.053 [cubic model − linear model]) and the quadratic trajectory model (ΔCFI = 0.058 [cubic model − quadratic model]). This cubic pattern is illustrated in Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, a cubic trajectory of change represents a nonlinear increase over time, however, this increase is marked by a series of fluctuations (i.e., small decreases and large increases [i.e., accelerations in growth]). Hence, although a cubic function of change indeed represents an overall increase in dehumanization perpetration, this increase demonstrates a dynamic pattern of nonlinearity.

Figure 2.
Depiction of the cubic trajectory of dehumanization perpetration.

The primary LGCM analyses were then conducted in which the LCSs for physical abuse and emotional abuse were regressed onto the intercept and slope latent variables (modeling a cubic rate of change) for dehumanization. A separate LGCM was estimated for each outcome variable (i.e., physical and emotional abuse). The LGCM with emotional abuse as the outcome variable demonstrated acceptable fit to the data χ²(17) = 43.601, p < .05; CFI = 0.911; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.11. The intercept (β = .40, p < .05) and slope (β = .49, p < .05) for dehumanization were significantly positively associated with changes in emotional abuse. That is, higher initial levels of dehumanization, as well as a cubic nonlinear change in dehumanization (points of upward acceleration in the perpetration of dehumanization) were associated with increases in emotional abuse over time.

The LGCM with physical abuse as the outcome variable resulted in excellent fit to the data χ²(17) = 22.068, p > .05; CFI = 0.972; RMSEA = 0.042; SRMR = 0.057. The intercept for dehumanization was not significantly associated with changes in physical abuse (β = −.02, p > .05), however, the slope for dehumanization was significantly positively associated with change in physical abuse (β = .17, p < .05). Specifically, a cubic change in dehumanization perpetration was associated with increases in the perpetration of physical abuse.

Discussion

Dehumanization has been proposed as an impelling factor in the prediction of aggression, violence, and abuse (Haslam, 2015; Kelman, 1973; Opotow, 1990; Staub, 1989). Recently, it has been suggested that this association extends beyond the contexts of moral atrocities and intergroup relations, and that dehumanization may well yield maltreatment within romantic relationships (Bastian et al., 2014; Pizzirani et al., 2018). Despite this, there exists no research (intergroup or interpersonal) that tests for the implied directional association between dehumanization and abuse. To address this limitation, the current study sought to determine the longitudinal association between the perpetration of dehumanization and the perpetration of emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships.

As part of our preliminary analyses, we determined that the trajectory that best fit the sample data was a cubic trajectory in which individuals demonstrate both minor decreases and points of upward acceleration in dehumanization over time. This trajectory is important to highlight as it speaks to the labile nature of dehumanization and affirms the theoretical assumption that the phenomenon may be best characterized as malleable over time and likely to be moderately stable at best (for studies that demonstrate changes in dehumanization, see Buckels & Trapnell, 2013; Fasoli et al., 2016; Gwinn et al., 2013). These findings pertaining to the nonlinear trajectory of dehumanization suggest that it is not a “steady” or uniform increase of dehumanization perpetration alone that predicts emotional and physical abuse. Instead, it is the attenuation of dehumanization coupled with acceleration or upsurges in its perpetration that best predicts the occurrence of emotional and physical abuse over time.

The implementation of this nonlinear trajectory within our main analyses yielded findings to suggest that the perpetration of dehumanization is indeed associated with the perpetration of both emotional and physical abuse. These findings are also consistent with recent cross-sectional research into which interpersonal dehumanization was reported to be associated with not only a wide range of romantic partner maltreatments (e.g., hostility, insensitivity, interference, and ridicule), but also emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships (Pizzirani et al., 2018). In the present study, however, nonlinear increases in dehumanization over a 6-week period were associated with an increase in abuse spanning 2 months.

In unpacking our findings further, we found that initial levels of dehumanization (i.e., the intercept) were positively associated with abuse, however, this relationship was only found for emotional abuse. It was also found that the cubic nonlinear increase in dehumanization perpetration was positively associated with increases in both outcome variables (i.e., emotional and physical abuse). More specifically, the trajectory of weekly reports of dehumanization across a 6-week period—best represented by a combination of decreases and acute upsurges—significantly predicted the difference (i.e., LCS) between reports of emotional and physical abuse at T1 and 2 months later, at T8.

Our longitudinal findings are significant for two reasons. Firstly, our findings provide the first evidence to suggest that dehumanization is a direct predictor in the manifestation of intimate partner abuse over time. The majority of research into the perpetration of abuse is cross-sectional in nature with little by way of empirical data based on prospective designs that speak to changes in the perpetration of abuse over time. Nevertheless, theory into intimate partner abuse assumes that various individual differences are indeed impelling factors that increase the likelihood of maltreatment (Finkel & Hall, 2018; Finkel et al., 2012²). Our findings therefore provide important empirical support for the theoretical claims regarding the causal implications of impelling factors such as dehumanization for intimate partner abuse.

Secondly, our findings directly affirm theory and past empirical evidence that dehumanization is a factor that facilitates the maltreatment of others (e.g., Allport, 1954/1979; Haslam, 2015; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Kelman, 1973). Importantly, our work extends on past research by suggesting that the maltreatment of others by way of dehumanization is not confined to intergroup contexts, acts of atrocity, or even interpersonal acquaintances that may have very little emotional connection to the perpetrator (e.g., Bastian & Haslam, 2010, 2011; Bastian et al., 2012). Rather, dehumanization can be perpetrated against those whom we regard as our most intimate and closest of ties, and that treating another as less than human gives one license to engage in abuse. As noted by Haslam and colleagues (e.g., Haslam, 2015; Haslam et al., 2013), dehumanization is thought to enable the perpetrator to act abusively or immorally against any individual (including a romantic partner) because they perceive the target of dehumanization to be someone who is less than human, and thus not worthy of moral and respectful treatment. Specifically, dehumanization enables a perpetrator to disconnect—or divorce themselves—from their moral reasoning that would usually maintain the humane treatment of others (Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996). Thus, the conceptualization of dehumanization as a mechanism that facilitates aggressive or abuse actions in the intergroup literature may well be an appropriate way to frame the occurrence of interpersonal dehumanization within romantic relationships.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the novel insights gained from this work, the current study has some limitations. Firstly, due the complexity of the analyses conducted, our sample size was only large enough to assess dehumanization globally (i.e., overall). We are therefore unable to shed any light on how the various facets of interpersonal dehumanization (see Haslam, 2006; Pizzirani et al., 2018) may differentially predict or be related to, emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships. A more thorough and complete examination of interpersonal dehumanization would unpack the dimensional elements (e.g., human uniqueness and human nature) of the construct in an attempt to better understand how they are associated with intimate partner abuse. Secondly—and as is often the case with the study of relationship processes—the examination between dehumanization and abuse within romantic relationships would benefit from a dyadic perspective. This approach would account for the influence that both members of a couple have on their own and their partner’s experience of dehumanization and abuse.

And finally, while self-report data are most commonly used when measuring dehumanization perpetration (for a review on the measurement advantages of using self-reports to assess overt dehumanization, see Kteily & Bruneau, 2017), researchers should look to confirm the findings of the present study by supplementing self-report measurements of dehumanization with behavioral (i.e., observational) assessments. By observationally coding for dehumanization—by way of identifying markers of denying another person’s unique or essential human qualities during relationship tasks that are commonly used in relationship research (e.g., a couple conflict discussion)—researchers will be able to triangulate self-report assessments with behavior directly observed within couple interactions.

Conclusion

The current study builds and expands upon previous studies of dehumanization by not only providing the first longitudinal assessment of the phenomenon, but by leveraging this unique longitudinal data to examine dehumanization’s association with emotional and physical abuse within romantic relationships. This research involved a novel and innovative approach to understanding the factors that lead to abuse at the hands of one’s romantic partner and how this may in fact be a result of their tendency to treat their partner as less than human. We hope that the findings from this study will help to generate further interest in the application of dehumanization to the study of interpersonal relationships and in doing so strengthen the evidence-base from which preventative strategies for domestic violence and abuse are developed.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was part of the first author's PhD thesis which was support by a scholarship: The Australian Government Department of Education and Training’s Research Training Program Scholarship.

Open research statement

The data and materials used in the research are available. The data and materials can be obtained by emailing bengianni.pizzirani@monash.edu.

Notes

References

Adams

(2014). Feeling less than human: Exploring the causes and consequences of dehumanization from the target’s perspective (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database.

Allport

G. W.

(1954/1979). The nature of prejudice (3rd ed.). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley publishing company.

Andrighetto

Baldissarri

Volpato

(2016). (Still) modern times: Objectification at work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 25–35.

Bain

Park

Kwok

Haslam

(2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups: Distinct forms for subtle dehumanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 789–805.

Bain

Vaes

Leyens

J.-P.

(2014). Humanness and dehumanization. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bandura

(1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

Pastorelli

(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.

Bastian

Haslam

(2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107–113.

Bastian

Haslam

(2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295–303.

10.

Bastian

Jetten

Haslam

(2014). An interpersonal perspective on dehumanization. In Bain

Vaes

Leyens

J. P.

(Eds.), Humanness and dehumanization (pp. 205–224). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

11.

Bastian

Jetten

Radke

H. R. M.

(2012). Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 486–491.

12.

Borjesson

W. I.

Aarons

G. A.

Dunn

M. E.

(2003). Development and confirmatory factor analysis of the Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 295–309.

13.

Buckels

E. E.

Trapnell

P. D.

(2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 771–780.

14.

Canevello

Crocker

(2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78.

15.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

16.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

17.

Coman

E. N.

Picho

McArdle

J. J.

Villagra

Dierker

Iordache

(2013). The paired t-test as a simple latent change score model. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 738.

18.

Fasoli

Paladino

M. P.

Carnaghi

Jetten

Bastian

Bain

P. G.

(2016). Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 237–248.

19.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

McNulty

J. K.

Pond

R. S.

Jr Atkins

D. C.

(2012). Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102, 533.

20.

Finkel

E. J.

Hall

A. N.

(2018). The I³ Model: A metatheoretical framework for understanding aggression. Current opinion in psychology, 19, 125–130.

21.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.

22.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rutledge

L. L.

Berg

B. J.

Hause

E. S.

Polek

D. S.

(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107–120.

23.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Campos

Bradbury

(2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 34–48.

24.

Gottman

J. M.

Murray

J. D.

Swanson

C. C.

Tyson

Swanson

K. R.

(2002). The mathematics of marriage: Dynamic nonlinear approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25.

Gwinn

J. D.

Judd

C. M.

Park

(2013). Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 464–470.

26.

Haslam

(2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.

27.

Haslam

(2015). Dehumanization and intergroup relations. In Milkulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2, Group processes (pp. 295–314). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

28.

Haslam

Bain

Douge

Lee

Bastian

(2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 937–950.

29.

Haslam

Loughnan

(2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.

30.

Haslam

Loughnan

Holland

(2013). The psychology of humanness. In Gervais

S. J.

(Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization: 60th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 25–51). New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

31.

Haslam

Stratemeyer

(2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29.

32.

Higgins

D. J.

McCabe

P. M

. (2000). Multi-type maltreatment and the long-term adjustment of adults. Child Abuse Review, 9, 6–18.

33.

Holley

S. R.

(2011). The demand-withdraw communication pattern in middle-aged and older couples: A longitudinal study (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database.

34.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

35.

Kant

(1991). Conjectures on the beginning of human history ( Nesbit

H. B.

, Trans.). In Reiss

(Ed.), Kant: Political writings (pp. 221–235). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological bulletin, 118, 3.

37.

Kelman

(1973). Violence without restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. In Kren

Rappoport

(Eds.), Varieties of psychohistory (pp. 282–314). New York, NY: Springer.

38.

Kteily

N. S.

Bruneau

(2017). Darker demons of our nature: The need to (re)focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 487–494.

39.

Kteily

N. S.

Bruneau

Waytz

Cotterill

(2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901–931.

40.

Leyens

J. P.

Rodriguez-Torres

Vaes

Demoulin

Rodriguez-Perez

Gaunt

(2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.

41.

Linden

Bjorklund

Backstrom

(2016). What makes authoritarian and socially dominant people more positive to using torture in the war on terrorism? Personality and Individual Difference, 91, 98–101.

42.

Murphy

C. M.

Hoover

S. A.

Taft

(1999). The multidimensional measure of emotional abuse: Factor structure and subscale validity. Toronto: Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy.

43.

Noller

Feeney

Bonnell

Callan

(1994). A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 233–252.

44.

Opotow

(1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues and Policy Review, 46, 1–20.

45.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

(2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1496–1513.

46.

Pizzirani

Karantzas

C. G.

(2018). The experience of hurt: A dehumanization perspective. Unpublished manuscript.

47.

Pizzirani

Karantzas

C. G.

Mullins

(2018). The development and validation of a dehumanization measure within romantic relationships. Unpublished manuscript.

48.

Rubin

Campbell

(2012). Day-to-day changes in intimacy predict heightened relationship passion, sexual occurrence, and sexual satisfaction: A dyadic diary analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 224–231.

49.

Staub

(1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Vaes

Paladino

M. P.

Leyens

J.-P.

(2002). The lost e-mail: Prosocial reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 521–523.

51.

Vaes

Paladino

M. P.

Puvia

(2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785.