How Dehumanization Influences Attitudes toward Immigrants

Abstract

Immigrants, as a group, are frequently described in ways, such as vermin or disease, that portray them as less than human. This type of dehumanizing language leads to negative emotional responses and negative attitudes toward the dehumanized group. This paper examines how the dehumanization of immigrants influences immigration policy attitudes. I use original experimental data to show that dehumanization leads to more negative immigration attitudes. I further find that these negative attitudes are mediated by the role of emotion. Dehumanization increases anger and disgust toward immigrants, which causes anti-immigrant sentiment.

Keywords

political psychology dehumanization language emotions

Crooked Hillary Clinton wants to flood our country with Syrian immigrants that we know little or nothing about. The danger is massive. NO!

—Donald Trump via Twitter, July 27, 2016¹

Political elites can employ numerous strategies to convince the public to agree with their policy positions. Perhaps one of the most powerful ways is to denigrate the out-group affected by the legislation. Discriminatory attitudes toward out-groups, and preferential treatment of in-groups, is a long-established trait of human behavior (see Sumner 1906). One tactic used to denigrate out-groups is dehumanization, which denies groups of individuals the same human status given to others (Haslam 2006). I focus on a type of dehumanization referred to by social psychologists as “animalistic dehumanization.”² This type of dehumanization denies out-groups traits that are uniquely human—things such as the ability to reason, think critically, or feel emotions—that are typically thought of as what separates human beings from other living organisms (Haslam 2006). Dehumanization leads to harsher judgments of a wide array of groups across a range of political issues, such as the Japanese in World War II (Dower 1986; Russell 1996), African Americans on trial for murder (Goff et al. 2008), natural disaster victims (Andrighetto et al. 2014; Cuddy, Rock, and Norton 2007), and terrorists (Waytz and Epley 2012).

In the above Tweet, Trump argues that Hillary Clinton wants to flood the United States with Syrian immigrants. In this comment, Trump not only takes a tone opposed to Clinton’s (supposed) policy position, but uses a form of dehumanizing language to refer to Syrian immigrants as a “flood.” This comparison of individuals with a natural disaster is a frequent way political elites use dehumanization. By using analogies to disasters, vermin, or disease, political elites are able to deny dehumanized individuals or groups some level of humanity, which makes it easier for the American public to support harsh and punitive action against them.

Despite Trump’s often inflammatory rhetoric, dehumanization is not new in American political life. In the early twentieth century, dehumanizing language was used frequently to describe immigrants entering the country (O’Brien 2003). Often, dehumanization takes the form of comparing out-groups to vermin or disease. This form of dehumanization is especially powerful, as it denies attributes of affect and cognition to the group that is dehumanized (Tipler and Ruscher 2014). At its most extreme, dehumanization can create severely negative images of entire groups in society. During World War II, American propaganda typically dehumanized the Japanese as apes or other lower forms of animals, while Nazi propaganda displayed Jewish individuals as pests and vermin, such as roaches (Dower 1986; Russell 1996). Perhaps most troubling, this dehumanization seemed to be quite effective at engendering hatred toward the dehumanized groups. I argue that dehumanization can occur more subtly, through minor changes in wording, rather than outright dehumanizing images like those present during World War II. This provides an important perspective for scholars of race and ethnic politics, as dehumanizing language is most often used against minority groups, and can have substantial negative consequences for these groups.

Dehumanizing language creates both cognitive and emotional responses in individuals. Directly, dehumanization should lead to more negative attitudes toward immigrants, as it provides a moral justification for punishment of out-groups. In addition, I focus in greater depth on the emotional responses caused by dehumanization. I expect that the direct effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrants is partially mediated by the role of emotion. That is, dehumanizing language should increase negative emotional responses of fear, anger, and disgust toward immigrants, which will in turn cause more anti-immigrant attitudes. I draw upon original experimental data to determine how dehumanizing immigrants as a disease influences attitudes toward immigration to test these predictions. Given that rhetoric that dehumanizes out-groups is relatively common in current political speech, it is important to understand how this rhetoric can influence attitudes toward immigrants.

Dehumanization, Language, and Political Attitudes

Language is an important factor in determining political attitudes. The language an individual speaks (Pérez and Tavits 2017), or the language in which an interview is conducted (Pérez 2016), have been shown to have consequences in determining attitudinal responses. This work frequently focuses on how language of interview can influence Latino/a attitudes toward immigration policy, though it extends into other policy areas (Lee and Pérez 2014). From this emerging literature, it is clear that language matters. However, even within the same language, word choice itself can provide different cognitive influence on decision making.

Politicians, and political elites in general, are concerned with political rhetoric. Politicians frequently use words or language that they believe will increase public support of their preferred policies (Riker 1996), and have long encouraged the tailoring of these comments to specific audiences to maximize their impact (Aristotle 1991). However, this rhetoric can have increasing consequences for those groups who are targets of the negative rhetoric. When Latino/as are exposed to rhetoric that devalues their group, those with a strong Latino/a identity respond by being more willing to defend their group and take political action, while those who identify more weakly do not take such action (Pérez 2015a). Similarly, when exposed to xenophobic rhetoric, strongly identifying Latino/as are increasingly supportive of ways to emphasize their in-group, in a way that weaker identifiers are not (Pérez 2015b). When African Americans are exposed to rhetoric emphasizing minority health concerns, they tend to view the issue as more important, in a way that whites do not (Gillion 2017). In addition, rhetoric is often affect-laden and emotional. Simply seeing words one has strong negative reactions toward leads to increasingly negative evaluations of politicians and policies (Utych 2017).

Emotional responses, however, do not operate in a vacuum. Literature on cognitive appraisals of emotions can inform how individuals respond emotionally to rhetoric. Depending on how an individual appraises the situation they are in, they are likely to respond with different emotions (Roseman 1991). This suggests that the same events can trigger different emotions in different individuals, depending upon how they perceive them (Lerner and Keltner 2000). Anger, in particular, has many distinct appraisals that predict its development: an external cause, coping potential, perceptions of unfairness of the situation, and familiarity of a threat (Brader and Marcus 2013). In this case, a study of a policy such as illegal immigration is ripe to produce anger. Since individuals can view immigration as caused externally by foreign nationals, many individuals believe the problem can be combated, it is perceived as a crime, and has been present in America for a long time. Another important discrete emotion, related to dehumanization generally and immigration specifically, is disgust, or the fear of contamination. Immigrants are frequently displayed as potential contaminants (O’Brien 2003), and describing individuals as subhuman often leads to this contamination threat (Haslam 2006).

To examine the interplay of political rhetoric and negative emotional responses, I examine a specific type of rhetoric, dehumanization, that influences judgments of out-groups through multiple channels. The first channel is cognitive, through moral exclusion of dehumanized groups. Dehumanization allows individuals to morally disengage from reprehensible conduct by changing how they look at the victim of the conduct (Bandura 2002). When groups are dehumanized, they are excluded from the typical moral consideration given to other human beings (Haslam 2006). By denying cognition to dehumanized groups, individuals will view them as less capable of realizing they have been treated poorly, which leads to an increased willingness to punish these groups (Bandura, Underwood, and Fromson 1975). In addition, dehumanized groups are assigned lower levels of worth than non-dehumanized groups, which allows individuals to morally justify harsh punishment against those who are dehumanized (Bandura et al. 1996). Moral exclusion causes dehumanized groups to “lose the capacity to evoke compassion and moral emotions, and . . . be treated as means toward vicious ends” (Haslam 2006, 254).

The cognitive process of moral disengagement is not the only mechanism through which dehumanization should lead to harsher treatment of and attitudes toward out-groups. Dehumanization also frequently produces a negative emotional response toward groups that are dehumanized. Typically, dehumanization leads to increased disgust or contempt toward a dehumanized group (Haslam 2006). When comparing humans with other, lower-level organisms, the distinction between humans and other living things is reduced, leading people to think of basic traits like death and excretion, leading to feelings of being debased (Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley 2000). At the same time, another group has been lowered beneath an individual’s in-group, which leads to contempt (Miller 1997). When an individual feels disgust, they are the most likely to engage in dehumanization (Buckels and Trapnell 2013). Existing empirical work on dehumanization demonstrates that dehumanization decreases empathy (Andrighetto et al. 2014; Stevenson et al. 2015) toward dehumanized groups, and humanization increases empathy toward humanized groups (Costello and Hodson 2010).

While emotions such as anger, disgust, and fear are all negative, they have distinct consequences for political engagement. Anger tends to mobilize all forms of political participation, while fear only mobilizes relatively costless forms of participation (Valentino et al. 2011). Those who feel anger or aversion are more likely to rely on their dispositions, while those who are fearful or anxious will seek out new information (Marcus, Neuman, and Mackuen 2000). Individuals who are disgusted with politics, however, are less likely to participate in politics (Vandenbroek 2011). Considering these distinct consequences of emotions, it is important to consider how each discrete negative emotion is influenced by the dehumanization of immigrants, and how these emotions mediate the relationship between dehumanization and anti-immigrant attitudes.

Illegal immigrants are one group who are prime targets of dehumanizing rhetoric. Since the early 1900s, metaphors used to dehumanize immigrants as invaders or diseased organisms have been prevalent in the American media (O’Brien 2003). More recently, this metaphor has continued to be used, describing immigrants as a virus or a pollutant (Cisneros 2008), in addition to direct reports that show immigrants as spreaders of infectious diseases (Esses, Medianu, and Lawson 2013). Dehumanization of others as vermin or disease can have especially troubling uses, as it is a frequent tactic used by groups who commit genocide (Russell 1996). Dehumanizing language related to disease and vermin may be even more powerful than language comparing humans with nonhuman animals. Human beings are generally attributed affect, behavior, and cognition. When compared with wild animals, dehumanized groups are denied cognition, but retain affect and behavior. However, when compared with disease or vermin, these groups are attributed only behavior, and denied both affect and cognition (Tipler and Ruscher 2014).

On the topic of immigration, Esses, Medianu, and Lawson (2013) find that Canadian political cartoons that are negative toward immigrants can lead individuals to express dehumanizing views of immigrants, and these views lead to contempt for immigrants. Beliefs about a conflictual relationship between immigrants and nationals also lead to contempt, which leads to negative attitudes toward immigrants (Louis, Esses, and Lalonde 2014). Individuals who are more prone to see out-groups as subhuman are more likely to advocate harsher treatment of these groups (Kteily et al. 2015). Stereotyping groups who are considered to be low in both competence and warmth (a category that typically includes migrant workers) leads to judgments of contempt, disgust, and anger toward these groups (Fiske et al. 2002). Those higher in disgust sensitivity are more supportive of detaining illegal immigrants (Kam and Estes 2016), and generally exhibit more negative attitudes toward immigrants and foreigners (Costello and Hodson 2007). Anxiety plays an important role in individual-level political decision making (Gadarian and Albertson 2014), particularly as it relates to the issue of immigration (Brader, Valentino, and Suhay 2008). On the topic of immigration, it seems that individuals want both protection and punishment. Given that responding with anger predicts a desire to punish, and fear or disgust predict a desire for protection (Brader and Marcus 2013), it makes sense to think that these emotions are working in concert on the issue of immigration. While knowledge of the effects of emotional response to immigrants and dehumanization has made some strides, I extend upon this line of research by examining how emotion is evoked by rhetorical choices, and I examine these discrete negative emotions together in that context.

Taking advantage of experimental data, I examine how dehumanization of immigrants through disease metaphors influences political attitudes. Experimental data are especially important to study the effects of language, as there is reason to expect that those who are exposed to dehumanizing rhetoric may be different than those who are not (e.g., they may pursue more ideological news outlets, or pay more attention to political news generally). Furthermore, dehumanization is often subtle, and a psychological concept. In this instance, individuals may not even recall being exposed to dehumanizing language, or may not be aware of what constitutes dehumanization. Review of the existing literature has led to multiple hypotheses, which I will test through the following two experimental studies. I expect that dehumanization of immigrants will lead to more negative attitudes toward immigrants. This relationship should be mediated by increased levels of negative emotions. Based on existing literature, I expect that dehumanization will lead to increased levels of anger and disgust. Also, because I focus on dehumanization through disease metaphors, I expect that this will make individuals more fearful of immigrants. That is, when individuals are exposed to anti-immigrant rhetoric that is dehumanizing, this should make them feel more anxiety, anger, and disgust, which will in turn lead to more restrictive policy preferences. Rhetoric about immigration also takes on multiple dehumanizing contexts; the term “coyotes” is a dehumanizing term frequently used against those who transport illegal immigrants, often in an exploitative way, across the U.S. border. Here, I expect that dehumanizing coyotes will lead to more support of pro-immigrant policies, but that this effect may be mitigated by having immigrants dehumanized as well.

Study 1—Dehumanization of Immigrants on Mechanical Turk (MTurk)

In this study, I conducted a brief experiment using Amazon’s MTurk in July 2014. Participants were U.S. citizens over the age of eighteen who were recruited from the MTurk platform. They were paid fifty cents for their time spent completing the study, which took an average of roughly three minutes. Only non-Hispanic whites were retained for analysis, giving a total N of 237. The sample is a convenience sample, with participants ranging in age from eighteen to eighty-two, with a mean of thirty-one. The sample was roughly 35 percent female, and highly educated, with 50 percent of participants having a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the study, participants were asked a few demographic questions, and were then randomly assigned to read one of two texts about immigration. The first text was negative toward immigration, but did not contain dehumanizing language.³ The second group was assigned to read a text with some words changed to dehumanize immigrants.⁴ While this language is strong, it is indicatative of rhetoric that dehumanizes immigrants. For example, Rep. Steve King of Iowa discussed selecting the “right” immigrants by using a metaphor comparing them to animals, saying, “You want a good bird dog? You want one that’s going to be aggressive? Pick the one that’s the friskiest . . . not the one that’s over there sleeping in the corner.”⁵ Comments such as this are used against immigrants frequently, and generally serve to deny them some elements of their humanity. While the treatment text has multiple instances of dehumanization, this may mimic the effects in the real world, where individuals are exposed to many types of information that dehumanizes immigrants. In total, roughly 18 percent of the text was changed between the non-dehumanization and dehumanization groups. The full treatment texts are available in Online Appendix A.

After reading the text, participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of questions about immigration policy. These questions are related to increasing the level of legal immigration, increasing border security, and supporting a way for illegal immigrants to gain legal status.⁶ These results are presented in Table 1. Dehumanization⁷ has a significant impact on attitudes toward immigration. Participants in the dehumanization treatment are about a third of a point⁸ less likely to believe the level of legal immigrants should be increased, and a similar magnitude more likely to support increased border security than those in the non-dehumanization group. They are also nearly two-thirds of a point less likely to support an amnesty program granting legal status to illegal immigrants. These results suggest that, even on a hotly contested issue such as immigration, even one short text dehumanizing immigrants as a virus or disease can have a negative influence on political attitudes.

Table 1.

Impact of Dehumanization on Immigration Attitudes—2014 MTurk Survey.

	Increase level of immigrants	Increase border security	Support amnesty for illegal immigrants
Dehumanization treatment	−0.37^† (0.19)	0.39* (0.20)	−0.65** (0.21)
Age	−0.01 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	−0.00 (0.01)
Female	0.26 (0.19)	−0.35^† (0.20)	0.27 (0.22)
Education	0.55 (0.45)	−0.26 (0.47)	0.38 (0.52)
Text realistic	−0.28 (0.39)	0.74^† (0.40)	−0.66 (0.44)
Text persuasive	−2.27** (0.35)	3.88** (0.36)	−3.47** (0.40)
Text unnatural	0.69^† (0.37)	−0.09 (0.39)	1.03* (0.42)
Constant	4.61** (0.52)	2.25** (0.54)	6.29** (0.59)
N	237	237	237
R ²	.2875	.4915	.4275

Table entries are OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to non-Hispanic whites only. MTurk = Mechanical Turk; OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Participants were also asked the extent to which they had an emotional response to illegal immigrants.⁹ This was measured on a 5-point scale, from very slightly or not at all (1) to extremely (5). Results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. Mean levels of these negative emotions were relatively low (1.52 for fear, 2.34 for anger, and 1.74 for disgust). Those in the dehumanization treatment were not different from the non-dehumanization group in self-reported feelings of fear or anger, though those in the dehumanization treatment were more likely to report feeling disgusted toward illegal immigrants. This effect is small, but is equivalent to a roughly one-fifth standard deviation increase in self-reported disgust.

Table 2.

Impact of Dehumanization on Emotional Responses to Immigrants—MTurk.

	Fear	Anger	Disgust
Dehumanization treatment	0.11 (0.10)	0.14 (0.15)	0.26^† (0.14)
Age	0.01 (0.00)	0.00 (0.01)	0.00 (0.01)
Female	−0.29** (0.10)	−0.43** (0.15)	−0.58** (0.14)
Education	−0.10 (0.24)	−0.31 (0.37)	0.07 (0.34)
Text realistic	0.05 (0.21)	0.12 (0.32)	0.30 (0.29)
Text persuasive	0.73** (0.19)	1.98** (0.28)	1.46** (0.26)
Text unnatural	0.20 (0.20)	−0.23 (0.30)	−0.36 (0.28)
Constant	1.06** (0.28)	1.32** (0.42)	0.92* (0.39)
N	237	237	237
R ²	.1234	.2855	.2580

Table entries are OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to non-Hispanic whites only. MTurk = Mechanical Turk; OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

This emotional response should, in part, explain the effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrations. To test this, I turn to a Sobel mediation analysis¹⁰ (Preacher and Leonardelli 2001; Sobel 1982) to determine the mediating effect of disgust on attitudes toward immigrants. First, I combine the three dependent variables in an additive scale ranging from 0 to 18, with 18 corresponding to the most pro-immigrant attitudes.¹¹ This scale has high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .81). Then, I conduct an analysis to determine how increased feelings of disgust mediate the effect of the dehumanization treatment on these attitudes. These results are presented in Figure 1. Here, dehumanization increases feelings of disgust, which in turn decreases the likelihood of an individual having pro-immigrant attitudes. Dehumanization retains a relatively large direct effect of over a point on the scale, though disgust itself has a rather large effect of over 4 points. Roughly 20 percent of the effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrants is explained by increased feelings of disgust.

Figure 1.

How disgust mediates the effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrants—Study 1.

Dehumanization of immigrants through the disease metaphor influences attitudes toward immigrants directly by causing more negative attitudes toward immigrants, and indirectly by increasing self-reported levels of disgust toward immigrants. However, the current study uses a convenience sample. While there is no reason to expect the treatment to be more effective on younger people, men, or the highly educated, it would be beneficial to see how dehumanization influences a more representative sample.

A more problematic issue is with the measurement of disgust. In this sample, self-reported disgust and anger were highly correlated (r = .765), suggesting that anger and disgust are hard emotions to disentangle with self-reports. Indeed, Nabi (2002) finds that lay perceptions of disgust often combine elements of what psychologists consider to be anger and disgust. In a sample of undergraduates tasked with writing a short essay, roughly 75 percent of those assigned to write about a time they felt disgust wrote about something that could be classified as anger, while only 25 percent wrote about something typically classified as disgust (Nabi 2002). To address these concerns, I turn to a similar study conducted on a representative sample of non-Hispanic whites.

Study 2—Dehumanization of Immigrants—Survey Sampling International (SSI) Study

Using the same treatment texts and group assignment as in Study 1, I included an immigration dehumanization module on an omnibus study conducted in late July and early August 2014. Participants were recruited from SSI’s survey panel. The entire survey took about thirteen minutes, and participants were compensated with entries into SSI’s prize drawings. Only non-Hispanic whites who are U.S. citizens and do not report having an immediate family member serving in the military were recruited for this study. Participants were sampled to be nationally representative on age, gender, and education.

In this study, a total of 1,084 participants were assigned to participate in the immigration experiment. They were assigned to receive a text that was negative toward immigrants, but not dehumanizing, or a text that was negative toward immigrants and dehumanized them as a disease or toxin.¹² Participants were then asked the same series of questions as in the MTurk study regarding their attitudes toward immigration, and a series of questions about their emotional responses toward illegal immigrants.

In this study, participants were asked to rate illegal immigrants on a feeling thermometer.¹³ In these analyses, I have excluded¹⁴ those rating illegal immigrants at zero on the feeling thermometer, which comprises 18 percent of the sample, and those who rate illegal immigrants at 100, roughly 4.6 percent of the sample.¹⁵ For those rating illegal immigrants at zero, there is not likely to be any effect of dehumanization, as they already have a strong, negative affective response to illegal immigrants. As such, I have retained only those who rate illegal immigrants above zero in pretreatment ratings. This is especially important because dehumanization should operate through causing attitudes toward immigrants to become more negative. If an individual already rates illegal immigrants at zero on the feeling thermometer, there is no way for them to feel more negatively about immigrants. For those rating illegal immigrants the highest on the scale, these individuals are less likely to feel negative affect toward immigrants.¹⁶ As such, it is likely that the rather small treatment may be rejected by these individuals. This retains a total of 565 participants for analysis. Results for the main dependent variables¹⁷ using this restricted sample are presented in Table 3.¹⁸

Table 3.

Impact of Dehumanization on Immigration Attitudes—2014 SSI Survey.

	Increase level of immigrants	Increase border security	Support amnesty for illegal immigrants
Dehumanization treatment	−0.20^† (0.12)	0.20^† (0.10)	−0.27* (0.13)
Conservative	−0.12 (0.16)	0.08 (0.13)	−0.18 (0.18)
Liberal	0.16 (0.16)	−0.50** (0.13)	0.37* (0.18)
Republican	0.21 (0.21)	0.07 (0.18)	−0.32 (0.24)
Education	0.28 (0.26)	0.09 (0.22)	0.14 (0.29)
Female	0.11 (0.12)	0.07 (0.11)	0.22 (0.14)
Political knowledge	0.27 (0.25)	0.07 (0.21)	0.48^† (0.27)
Political news	−0.36 (0.25)	−0.33 (0.22)	0.26 (0.28)
Feeling thermometer illegal immigrants	2.19** (0.26)	−2.14** (0.22)	2.81** (0.29)
Text realistic	−1.62** (0.32)	1.43** (0.27)	−0.97** (0.36)
Text persuasive	−0.03 (0.29)	0.37 (0.25)	−0.34 (0.33)
Text unnatural	−0.13 (0.25)	−0.45* (0.21)	−0.04 (0.28)
Constant	1.99** (0.37)	5.58** (0.31)	2.10** (0.41)
N	565	565	565
R ²	.2816	.4061	.3188

Table entries are OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Sample excludes those who rate illegal immigrants at 0 or 100 on the feeling thermometer. SSI = Survey Sampling International; OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Here, the effect sizes of the dehumanization treatment are a bit smaller in magnitude than in Study 1, but dehumanization still has an effect on attitudes toward immigration. Compared with the non-dehumanization group, those in the dehumanization group are less likely to want to increase the number of legal immigrants and support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and more likely to want to increase border security. As with the MTurk sample in Study 1, this representative sample of non-Hispanic whites is influenced by dehumanization of immigrants.

Table 4¹⁹ demonstrates how dehumanizing immigrants leads to an emotional response toward illegal immigrants. Fear, anger, and disgust were measured on the same 5-point scale as in Study 1. Again, these negative emotional responses had relatively low mean values (1.73 for fear, 2.47 for anger, and 2.12 for disgust). Here, dehumanization leads to higher reported feelings of both anger and disgust,²⁰ but not fear. Both anger and disgust increase about one-fifth of a point on a 5-point scale for the dehumanization treatment, compared with the non-dehumanization treatment. Again, anger and disgust are highly correlated in this sample (r = .719), suggesting that self-reported disgust may be tapping feelings of anger rather than disgust. To address this concern, I also asked respondents to indicate, on a 7-point scale, whether immigrants make Americans more prone to infectious diseases. This measure helps tap the idea of contamination disgust, which helps alleviate concerns about the lack of a lay distinction between disgust and anger (see Kam and Estes 2016). Given that immigrants are portrayed as a disease in this study, it is more likely to evoke a contamination disgust response rather than a socio-moral disgust response. This measure is still correlated with feelings of anger, though considerably less so than the self-reported disgust measure (r = .458). Furthermore, it is still able to tap an element of disgust where illegal immigrants are clearly the target of the emotional response. Those in the dehumanization treatment are more likely to report that they believe immigrants make Americans prone to infectious disease,²¹ though the effect is small, only about one-fifth of a scale point (see Table 5).

Table 4.

Impact of Dehumanization on Emotional Responses to Immigrants.

	Fear	Anger	Disgust	Immigrants make Americans more prone to disease
Dehumanization treatment	0.07 (0.08)	0.21* (0.09)	0.16^† (0.09)	0.21^† (0.13)
Conservative	0.06 (0.11)	−0.05 (0.12)	−0.10 (0.12)	0.29^† (0.17)
Liberal	−0.20^† (0.11)	−0.41** (0.12)	−0.39** (0.12)	−0.28^† (0.17)
Republican	0.12 (0.14)	−0.01 (0.16)	−0.03 (0.17)	0.07 (0.23)
Education	−0.10 (0.17)	−0.26 (0.19)	−0.28 (0.20)	−0.19 (0.28)
Female	0.04 (0.08)	−0.03 (0.09)	0.02 (0.10)	−0.07 (0.13)
Political knowledge	−0.33* (0.17)	−0.13 (0.18)	−0.24 (0.19)	−0.54* (0.27)
Political news	−0.02 (0.17)	−0.15 (0.19)	−0.24 (0.20)	−0.31 (0.28)
Feeling thermometer illegal immigrants	−0.71** (0.17)	−2.42** (0.19)	−1.87** (0.20)	−2.18** (0.28)
Text realistic	0.27 (0.22)	0.85** (0.24)	1.00** (0.25)	1.50** (0.35)
Text persuasive	0.43* (0.20)	0.48* (0.22)	0.32 (0.23)	0.05 (0.32)
Text unnatural	0.46** (0.17)	0.05 (0.19)	0.55** (0.20)	−0.32 (0.27)
Constant	1.63** (0.25)	2.93** (0.28)	2.36** (0.29)	4.47** (0.40)
N	565	565	565	565
R ²	.1434	.4101	.3052	.2950

Table entries are OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. Sample excludes those who rate illegal immigrants at 0 or 100 on the feeling thermometer. OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.

Impact of Dehumanization of Immigrants and Name of Smugglers on Attitudes toward Punishment.

	Support harsher punishment
Dehumanization treatment	0.28* (0.12)
Coyote treatment	0.36** (0.12)
Dehumanization × Coyote	−0.44* (0.17)
Text realistic	0.57** (0.22)
Text persuasive	0.52* (0.21)
Text unnatural	−0.24 (0.17)
Feeling thermometer illegal immigrants	−1.77** (0.15)
Constant	5.49** (0.16)
N	1,082
R ²	.2002

Table entries are OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

To determine how emotional response mediates the effect of dehumanization on attitudes, and to determine how anger and disgust operate differently, I again turn to a Sobel mediation analysis (Sobel 1982). Because this analysis uses two mediating variables, I perform the mediation analysis according to Preacher and Hayes (2008).²² I again recode the three immigration attitude variables into an additive scale ranging from 0 to 18 (Cronbach’s α = .76). Anger is measured through self-reported measures, while disgust is measured through the question on how much the respondent agrees that immigrants make Americans more prone to infectious diseases. Both variables are recoded from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating higher levels of the emotional response. This analysis is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

How disgust and anger mediate the effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrants—Study 2.

To further unpack this, I turn to a mediation analysis of each dependent variable separately.²³ For the increase immigration variable, the indirect effect of anger is −0.043 (SE = .021), the indirect effect of disgust is −0.029 (SE = .020), and 35.5 percent of the total effect is mediated. For increasing border security, the indirect effect of anger is −0.038 (SE = .018), the indirect effect of disgust is −0.023 (SE = .016), with 31.1 percent of the total effect mediated. For support of amnesty, the indirect effect of anger is −0.085 (SE = .037), while the indirect effect of disgust is −0.022 (SE = .016), for a 39.1 percent total mediation effect. While these results do not achieve the same levels of statistical significance as they do for the scaled variables, they are similar in direction, and emotional responses seem to have roughly similar effects for each variable.

Both anger and disgust have a mediating effect on how dehumanization influences attitudes toward immigrants. Anger has a bit larger of an indirect effect than disgust, and both have relatively strong negative effects on attitudes toward immigrants. The direct effect of dehumanization persists, equivalent to about a half-point decrease on the scale of pro-immigrant attitudes. Roughly 36 percent of the total effect of the dehumanization treatment on attitudes toward immigrants is mediated by feelings of anger and disgust.

Finally, in this survey, I took advantage of the common term “coyote,” which refers to individuals who transport immigrants illegally into the United States (and frequently exploit them) to conduct an additional question wording experiment. I asked participants the following question, and manipulated whether these individuals were called “coyotes” or “persons.” The question text is as follows:

Would you favor or oppose harsher punishment for [coyotes/persons] who are paid by undocumented immigrants to bring them into the United States?

Here, I analyze results from all survey respondents, as I do not necessarily expect that preexisting attitudes toward illegal immigrants will bias how individuals feel about those who transport illegal immigrants into the United States should be punished. As expected, the coyote treatment has a positive direct effect, though only for those in the non-dehumanization treatment group. In the non-dehumanization group, individuals believe about one-third of a point more strongly that individuals should be punished more harshly for transporting immigrants when they are called “coyotes” compared with when they are called “persons.” However, this effect disappears in the group where immigrants have been dehumanized. Those in the control group are actually about one-tenth of a scale point more supportive of harsher punishment, though this effect is not distinguishable from zero. Those in the dehumanization group also are more supportive of harsher punishments generally (about a one-quarter point difference, comparing those who receive the “persons” language only). The term “coyotes” itself is a dehumanizing term, comparing those transporting immigrants to wild, predatory animals. It appears that, when immigrants are not dehumanized, dehumanizing a group who takes advantage of them encourages harsher punishment. However, when immigrants are dehumanized, it appears that respondents prefer punishment generally, but dehumanizing the individuals who transport immigrants across the border does not have an effect on the level of punishment they support.

As in Study 1, dehumanization influences attitudes toward immigrants negatively. In this study, I am able to better isolate the discrete emotional responses to dehumanization of immigrants as a disease, and find that both disgust and anger partially mediate the effect of dehumanization on attitudes toward immigrants. This falls in line with existing work on dehumanization that suggests contempt and disgust are the emotional mechanisms through which dehumanization operates, and extends upon this work by testing each emotional response concurrently. The dehumanizing term “coyote” can have some positive consequences for illegal immigrants, as this language leads to increased support for harsher punishment for individuals who smuggle immigrants across the border, often exploiting them and putting their lives at risk. However, I find that this effect only persists in instances where illegal immigrants have not already been dehumanized.

Summary and Conclusion

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2008, 85) explains dehumanization by saying, “People find a group of humans onto whom they can project the discomfort they feel about their own bodies, calling them smelly, slimy, disgusting.” Media portrayals of immigrants have long followed this formula (Cisneros 2008; O’Brien 2003). I find that dehumanizing immigrants by portraying them as a virus or disease leads to more negative attitudes toward immigrants and more restrictive policy preferences. The impact of dehumanization is mediated by the emotional responses of disgust and anger. Using a nationally representative survey, I further find that anger and disgust have distinct consequences for policy preferences and attitudes on immigration.

This research has implications for scholars of political psychology and language in politics. Using language that dehumanizes out-groups leads to harsher evaluations of those groups, and predicts more restrictive policy preferences. While these effects are small, they are based only on a single instance of dehumanization of the out-group. As dehumanization of out-groups occurs more frequently, it may lead to increasingly negative attitudes toward these groups among the public.

There are also implications for those who study how emotions mediate the role of political rhetoric. In this study, I use a measure of disgust that is more distinguishable from anger than a self-report, and I am able to examine distinct emotional responses to dehumanization together in the same study. I show that anger and disgust both mediate the effect of dehumanization on attitudes, suggesting that the emotional response to dehumanizing language is relatively complex. This could explain why scholars have found such varied emotional mediation mechanisms in previous research on dehumanization. It is clear that dehumanization leads to a negative affective response to out-groups, but it is unclear which responses are triggered in which types of individuals. Future research could examine how dehumanization influences individuals high in trait aggression and disgust sensitivity in different ways. Individual-level disgust sensitivity serves to predict a host of public health (Clifford and Wendell 2016) and moral (Kam and Estes 2016) issues, so it is important to consider how trait-level disgust sensitivity works with dehumanization in future research.

Furthermore, there are implications for the study of emotions and immigration. Feeling anxiety about immigration causes a biased information search—that is, individuals who feel anxious about immigration are more likely to read and agree with information about immigrants that is more threatening (Gadarian and Albertson 2014). It is important to consider how dehumanization can influence such information gathering. Because dehumanization operates through increasing both anger and disgust toward dehumanized immigrants, how may this influence information seeking about immigration, in concert with anxiety? In addition, anger and disgust are emotions with unique behavioral consequences. This study was not able to adjudicate a difference in policy preference between anger and disgust toward immigrants, but future work could examine how these emotions may predict different reactions to immigrants. One could imagine, for example, that disgust may trigger protectionist policies, such as increased barriers to entry or removal from the country of immigrants, while anger may lead to more confrontational policy preferences, such as incarceration or even violence. This study only asked individuals about general immigration policies, but future work on dehumanization and emotional responses toward immigrants could examine how different policy areas are predicted by emotional response.

This research also has implications for scholars of race and ethnic politics. Because dehumanized groups are typically racial or ethnic minorities, it is important to consider how contextual effects like dehumanization can influence racial attitudes. Scholars who use survey or observational data to examine racial attitudes should consider the influence of dehumanization, especially chronic dehumanization, of these groups by political elites. I have shown that attitudes toward immigrants can be influenced by dehumanizing language, so it is important to consider the possibility that how political elites and the public talk about minority groups could influence individuals’ attitudinal responses toward these groups.

There are some limitations to this study that must be adjudicated in future work. First, it is possible that the dehumanization text is simply stronger information than the control text. In the current study, I was unable to test that. However, increased disgust toward a dehumanized group is a common prediction in literature on dehumanization, and showing that suggests that, to some extent, dehumanization is occurring. Future work could use a manipulation check to verify that the dehumanized treatment actually works to dehumanize the target group. In addition, it is difficult to contextualize the effect size of dehumanization. How would these effects hold up to standard types of information that biases decision making, like partisan cues? Given the effect sizes, I imagine the cues of language would be mitigated at least partially, if not completely, by a partisan cue, but the current study does not allow one to draw such conclusions.

Dehumanization is a normatively troubling concept. When a group is referred to as vermin or disease, they are denied the human traits of affect and cognition. This leads to preferences that are in line with how individuals would treat a disease or infestation—through extermination or eradication (Tipler and Ruscher 2014). These troubling metaphors are shockingly similar to those used in Nazi Germany (Russell 1996). Given that dehumanization has historically led to catastrophic consequences for dehumanized groups, it is important for both scholars and practitioners of politics to understand how this language operates and the serious consequences it may have for marginalized groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I thank Cindy Kam, John Geer, Josh Clinton, Neil Malhotra, Amber Curtis, Michael Tesler, Lori Hausegger, Jaci Kettler, Jeff Lyons, and Justin Vaughn for helpful advice.

Author’s Note

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental materials for this article are available with the manuscript on the Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) website.

References

Andrighetto

Luca

Baldissarri

Cristina

Lattanzio

Sara

Loughnan

Steve

Volpato

Chiara

. 2014. “Human-itarian Aid? Two Forms of Dehumanization and Willingness to Help after Natural Disasters.” British Journal of Social Psychology 53:573–84.

Aristotle. 1991. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by Kennedy

George A.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Bandura

Albert

. 2002. “Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency.” Journal of Moral Education 31 (2): 101–19.

Bandura

Albert

Barbaranelli

Claudio

Caprara

Gian Vittorio

Pastorelli

Concetta

. 1996. “Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (2): 364–74.

Bandura

Albert

Underwood

Bill

Fromson

Michael E.

1975. “Disinhibition of Aggression through Diffusion of Responsibility and Dehumanization of Victims.” Journal of Research in Personality 9:253–69.

Brader

Ted

Marcus

George E.

2013. “Emotion and Political Psychology.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed., edited by Huddy

Leonie

Sears

David O.

Levy

Jack S.

, 165–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brader

Ted

Valentino

Nicholas A.

Suhay

Elizabeth

. 2008. “What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 959–78.

Bremer

Rod

. 2016. The Manual: A Guide to the Ultimate Study Method. Cambridge: Fons Sapientiae Publishing.

Buckels

Erin E.

Trapnell

Paul D.

2013. “Disgust Facilitates Outgroup Dehumanization.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16:771–80.

10.

Cisneros

J. David

. 2008. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 11 (4): 569–601.

11.

Clifford

Scott

Wendell

Dane G.

2016. “How Disgust Influences Health Purity Attitudes.” Political Behavior 38 (1): 155–78.

12.

Costello

Kimberly

Hodson

Gordon

. 2007. “Interpersonal Disgust, Ideological Orientations, and Dehumanization as Predictors of Intergroup Attitudes.” Psychological Science 18 (8): 691–98.

13.

Costello

Kimberly

Hodson

Gordon

. 2010. “Exploring the Roots of Dehumanization: The Role of Animal-Human Similarity in Promoting Immigrant Humanization.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13 (1): 3–22.

14.

Cuddy

Amy J. C.

Rock

Mindi S.

Norton

Michael I.

2007. “Aid in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of Secondary Emotions and Intergroup Helping.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10 (1): 107–18.

15.

Dower

John W.

1986. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Random House.

16.

Esses

Victoria M.

Medianu

Stelian

Lawson

Andrea S.

2013. “Uncertainty, Threat and the Role of the Media in Promoting the Dehumanization of Immigrants and Refugees.” Journal of Social Issues 69 (3): 518–36.

17.

Fiske

Susan T.

Cuddy

Amy J. C.

Glick

Peter

Jun

. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878–902.

18.

Gadarian

Shana Kushner

Albertson

Bethany

. 2014. “Anxiety, Immigration, and the Search for Information.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 133–64.

19.

Gillion

Daniel Q.

2017. “Words and Deeds: Presidential Discussion of Minority Health, Public Policies, and Minority Perceptions.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 42 (5): 841–63.

20.

Goff

Phillip Atiba

Eberhardt

Jennifer L.

Williams

Melissa J.

Christian Jackson

Matthew

. 2008. “Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization, and Contemporary Consequences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (2): 292–306.

21.

Haslam

Nick

. 2006. “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (3): 252–64.

22.

Hicks

Raymond

Tingley

Dustin

. 2011. Causal mediation analysis. Stata Journal 11: 609–615.

23.

Imai

Kosuke

Keele

Luke

Tingley

Dustin

. 2010. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods 15:309–34.

24.

Kam

Cindy D.

Estes

Beth A.

2016. “Disgust Sensitivity and Public Demand for Protection.” Journal of Politics 78 (2): 481–96.

25.

Kteily

Nour

Bruneau

Emile

Waytz

Adam

Cotterill

Sarah

. 2015. “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109 (5): 901–31.

26.

Lee

Taeku

Pérez

Efrén O.

2014. “The Persistent Connection between Language-of-Interview and Latino Political Opinion.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 401–25.

27.

Lerner

Jennifer S.

Keltner

Dacher

. 2000. “Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Influences on Judgment and Choice.” Cognition & Emotion 14:473–93.

28.

Louis

Winnifred R.

Esses

Victoria M.

Lalonde

Richard N.

2014. “National Identification, Perceived Threat, and Dehumanization as Antecedents of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants in Australia and Canada.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43:156–65.

29.

Marcus

George E.

Neuman

W. Russell

Mackuen

Michael

. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Miller

William I.

1997. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

31.

Nabi

Robin L.

2002. “The Theoretical versus the Lay Meaning of Disgust: Implications for Emotion Research.” Cognition & Emotion 16 (5): 695–703.

32.

Nussbaum

Martha C.

2008. “Toward a Globally Sensitive Patriotism.” Daedalus 137 (3): 78–92.

33.

O’Brien

Gerald V.

2003. “Indigestible Food, Conquering Hordes, and Waste Materials: Metaphors of Immigrants and the Early Immigration Restriction Debate in the United States.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (1): 33–47.

34.

Pérez

Efrén O.

2015a. “Ricochet: How Elite Discourse Politicizes Racial and Ethnic Identities.” Political Behavior 37 (1): 155–80.

35.

Pérez

Efrén O.

2015b. “Xenophobic Rhetoric and Its Political Effects on Immigrants and Their Co-ethnics.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 549–64.

36.

Pérez

Efrén O.

2016. “Rolling Off the Tongue into the Top-of-the-Head: Explaining Language Effects on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 38 (3): 603–34.

37.

Pérez

Efrén O.

Tavits

Margit

. 2017. “Language Shapes People’s Time Perspective and Support for Future-Oriented Policies.” American Journal of Political Science 61:715–27.

38.

Preacher

Kristopher J.

Hayes

Andrew F.

2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavioral Research Methods 40:879–91.

39.

Preacher

Kristopher J.

Leonardelli

Geoffrey J.

2001. “Calculation for the Sobel Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests.” http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm.

40.

Riker

William H.

1996. The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.

41.

Roseman

Ira J.

1991. “Appraisal Determinants of Discrete Emotions.” Cognition & Emotion 5 (3): 161–200.

42.

Rozin

Paul

Haidt

Jonathan

McCauley

Clark R.

2000. “Disgust.” In Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed., edited by Lewis

Michael

Haviland-Jones

Jeannette M.

, 637–53. New York: Guilford Press.

43.

Russell

Edmond P.

1996. “‘Speaking of Annihilation’: Mobilizing for War against Human and Insect Enemies, 1914–1945.” Journal of American History 82 (4): 1505–29.

44.

Sumner

William G

. 1906. Folkways. Boston: Ginn

45.

Sobel

Michael E.

1982. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equations Models.” In Sociological Methodology 1982, edited by Leinhart

, 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

46.

Stevenson

Margaret C.

Malik

Sarah E.

Totton

Rebecca R.

Reeves

Rebecca D.

2015. “Disgust Sensitivity Predicts Punitive Treatment of Juvenile Sex Offenders: The Role of Empathy, Dehumanization, and Fear.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 15:177–97.

47.

Tipler

Caroline

Ruscher

Janet B.

2014. “Agency’s Role in Dehumanization: Non-human Metaphors of Out-Groups.” Social & Personality Psychology Compass 8 (5): 214–28.

48.

Utych

Stephen M.

2017. “Negative Affective Language in Politics.” American Politics Research. Published electronically February 1. doi:10.1177/1532673X17693830.

49.

Valentino

Nicholas A.

Brader

Ted

Groenendyk

Eric W.

Gregorowicz

Krysha

Hutchings

Vincent L.

2011. “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–70.

50.

Vandenbroek

L. Matthew

. 2011. “Disentangling Aversion: Experimentally Testing the Impact of Disgust and Anger on Political Participation.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association: Seattle, WA, September.

51.

Waytz

Adam

Epley

Nicholas

. 2012. “Social Connection Enables Dehumanization.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48:70–76.

52.

Wright

Matthew

Levy

Morris

Citrin

Jack

. 2016. “Public Attitudes toward Immigration Policy across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making.” Political Behavior 38:229–53.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

0.01 MB

0.64 MB