Introduction to the Special Issue of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Less than Human: What People who are Dehumanized Think,Feel,and Do

Metadehumanization

As stated, metadehumanization occurs when targets perceive that they are victims of dehumanizing treatment. Dehumanizing feelings can be triggered by social agents, that is, outgroup members or other individuals. For example, at the intergroup level, recent work has analyzed the metaperception that another group dehumanizes our own group (e.g., Kteily et al., 2016), showing that feeling dehumanized is distinct from feeling disliked (e.g., Kteily & Bruneau, 2017a,b; Landry et al., 2021) and that metadehumanization is a powerful trigger of intergroup hostility. These metadehumanizing perceptions can also arise at an interpersonal level. In their pioneering work, Bastian and Haslam (2010, 2011) showed that people feel they are being denied the human nature or human uniqueness dimensions when other people’s behaviors undermine fundamental facets of their personhood, such as identity, status, or feelings of belonging.

Metadehumanizing feelings may arise in various social contexts. For instance, feelings of dehumanization have been evidenced both in romantic relationships (e.g., Pizzirani et al., 2019) and in sexually tainted interpersonal encounters (e.g., Chevallereau et al., 2021). Metadehumanization has also been shown to arise in work contexts when, for instance, workers feel objectified by their superiors (e.g., Baldissarri et al., 2014; Baldissarri & Andrighetto, 2021) or suffer from abusive supervision (Caesens et al., 2019). Finally, in the medical context, metadehumanization has been reported by individuals suffering from severe alcohol use disorders (e.g., Fontesse et al. 2020).

Broadly speaking, metadehumanization feelings, when they are caused by a social perpetrator (individual or group), often emerge as a consequence of the targets’ perception of being maltreated by others. For instance, metadehumanization has been shown to occur as a consequence of ostracism (Bastian & Haslam, 2010, 2011), harassment (Moor et al., 2013), abusive practices and leadership (Caesens et al., 2019; Sainz & Baldissarri, 2021; Sainz, Delgao et al., 2021), and racial discrimination (Mekawi & Watson-Singleton, 2021).

Metadehumanizing perceptions can also be triggered by nonsocial agents. For instance, Sainz, Martinez et al. (2021) reported higher dehumanization feelings among people of low social economic status as compared to those with higher status. In the same vein, among the six antecedents identified by Brison and colleagues (2022) in their review of the literature on feelings of dehumanization among employees in organizations, four were nonsocial in nature. That is, studies have reported effects of factors related to the broader society or the culture in which the organization is embedded (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2021), the characteristics of the organization itself (e.g., perceived procedural justice; Bell & Khoury, 2016), perceived organizational support (Caesens et al., 2017), the job employees have to perform (e.g., isolating or meaningless jobs; Caesens et al., 2019), and the situation or the physical environment (e.g., flex desks [Taskin et al., 2019]; materially unsatisfying and unhealthy environments [Stinglhamber et al., 2022]).

As systematized by the recent work of Demoulin, Nguyen, and colleagues (2021) using a multipopulation approach (three studies involving females, patients with alcohol disorder, and workers, respectively), all these potential dehumanizing factors have in common a threat being posed to fundamental human needs (Bastian & Haslam, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000): the need for autonomy/control, the need for competence/self-efficacy, the need for relatedness/belonging, the need for positiveness/esteem. Experiencing a situation in which the satisfaction of these needs is thwarted is consistently associated with the perception of being dehumanized.

Crucially, metadehumanization is likely to produce a wide array of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral consequences (Demoulin, Maurage, et al., 2021). For example, Bastian and Haslam (2011; see also Zhang et al., 2017) showed that when a failure to recognize human uniqueness or equal status occurs, aversive self-awareness and feelings of shame and guilt emerge. When there is a failure to recognize human nature or the basic existence as a person, cognitive deconstructive states and feelings of sadness and anger emerge. Similarly, recent work on organizational dehumanization revealed a series of detrimental consequences for workers, such as decreased job satisfaction and well-being, increased burnout, -turnover, and negative coping strategies (see Demoulin, Nguyen, et al., 2021). Being treated as objects also leads to decreased perceived authenticity (Cheng et al., 2022) and to increased aggressive tendencies (Poon et al., 2020), it also contributes to increased behavioral and reaction inhibition in women experiencing harassment (Moor et al., 2013).

In addition, metadehumanization affects the relationship between the victim and their perpetrator(s). For instance, research has shown that the experience of being dehumanized by an outgroup predicts reciprocal dehumanization of this outgroup and triggers reciprocal hostility, maintaining the cycle of conflict (e.g., Kteily et al., 2016, Kteily & Bruneau, 2017a,b; Landry et al., 2021; Landry et al., 2022). Fortunately, such metaperceptions are malleable and this malleability can provide an interesting way of increasing the attribution of humanity (Kteily & Landry, 2022). For instance, research has shown that information that outgroup members considered the ingroup as fully human is sufficient to reduce the dehumanization of the outgroup and to increase empathy and facilitate acceptance (Borinca et al., 2021; Kteily et al., 2016; Pavetich & Stathi, 2021).

In addition to affecting the victim–perpetrator relationship, metadehumanizing feelings also have a side effect on the victims’ relationships with other social targets. That is, metadehumanization increases the tendency for victims to report acting in a dehumanized way with “innocent” third parties, in a form of displaced dehumanization (Bustillos et al., 2022). Research shows, for instance, that prison officers who perceived being dehumanized by the penitentiary institution in which they worked had the impression that they developed more depersonalized relationships with incarcerated inmates (Stinglhamber et al., 2022). In a similar way, nurses reported dehumanizing their patients more when they themselves felt dehumanized by their hierarchical superiors (Fontesse, Rimez, et al., 2021).

Importantly, the displacement of dehumanization onto innocent scapegoats does not seem to be a figment of the imagination of those who report it. Indeed, recent research has evidenced the concrete reality of these trickle-down effects of dehumanization. For instance, Lagios and Caesens (2022) have shown that, at work, subordinates’ perceived level of dehumanization by their superior is directly related to their superior’s perceived level of dehumanization by their organization (see also Lagios et al., 2022).

Other work suggests that, in certain cases, metadehumanization could transform itself into self-dehumanization, the other main topic that we consider in this Special Issue.

Self-dehumanization

Self-dehumanization is evidenced when people dehumanize their self-concept and view it as possessing attributes that are less human (Bastian & Crimston, 2014). The study of self-dehumanization is still in its infancy; however, evidence of self-dehumanization has been found in different contexts. For example, Loughnan and colleagues (2017) showed that women recalling a situation in which they were objectified tended to self-attribute reduced humanness. Similarly, the self-stigma and metadehumanization perceived by people with severe alcohol use disorder were associated with increased self-dehumanization (Fontesse, Demoulin, et al., 2021). Furthermore, research in the work domain has shown that the perception of being instrumentalized by one’s superior or by the organization as a whole leads workers to internalize this view and self-attribute reduced levels of humanness (Baldissarri et al., 2014; Loughnan et al., 2017; Sainz & Baldissarri, 2021). Finally, victims of ostracism (e.g., Bastian & Haslam, 2010) or of negative contact (Murray et al., 2022) have also reported self-dehumanizing perceptions.

Yet, self-dehumanization can arise independently of the direct perception of being dehumanized by another social agent. Research, for example, has shown that some individual characteristics, namely Machiavellianism and economic opportunism (Sakalaki et al., 2016), or individual tendencies, such as the prioritization of money (Ruttan & Lucas, 2018), are associated with elevated mechanistic self-dehumanization. Furthermore, behaving in immoral (Kouchaki et al., 2018), violent (Bastian et al., 2012), or ostracizing (Bastian et al., 2013) ways is associated with more pronounced self-dehumanizing perceptions, implying that performing unethical behaviors seems incompatible with a perception of the self as a full human being.

Self-dehumanization can also rise as a consequence of the situation in which a person is placed. For instance, Baldissarri and colleagues (2017) showed that performing repetitive, fragmented, and other-directed activities can indeed lead workers to self-attribute less human mental states and to self-perceive as being more instrument- than humanlike. Other research has found that people experiencing a powerless position felt less human than people in a higher power position (Yang et al., 2015).

Self-dehumanization is not without significant consequences. For instance, self-objectifying perceptions are related to a reduced belief in free will (Baldissarri et al., 2017) and an increased tendency to conform to other people’s opinions (Andrighetto et al., 2018). In other domains, self-dehumanization has been found to be related to engaging in immoral behaviors (Kouchaki et al., 2018) and to increasing levels of anxiety, depression, and decreasing drink refusal self-efficacy in a sample of people with alcohol use disorders (Fontesse, Demoulin, et al., 2021).

As damaging as self-dehumanization can be, it can also have positive potential, as is the case with metadehumanization. Bastian and collaborators (2013) hypothesized that, when self-dehumanization occurs as a consequence of one’s immoral action, people would be motivated to regain their lost humanity and that this motivation would translate into an increase in prosocial behaviors. In two studies, these authors found that ostracism of other people led to an increase, among those who ostracized, in volunteering and that this increase was explained by the self-dehumanizing perceptions that ostracism behaviors imply.

A more recent perspective has focused on the hypothesis of tethered humanity, for which both the victim and perpetrator of interpersonal harm perceive themselves to be less human (i.e., they self-dehumanize), and both experience a motivational state that seeks to restore their full humanity. From this perspective, the humanity of perpetrators and victims are tethered—both need to recognize the humanity of their counterpart, and reconciliation attempts need to be accepted by one’s counterpart for one’s own self-humanity to be restored (Vaes & Bastian, 2021). Specifically, self-dehumanization, when it is a consequence of interpersonal harm, promotes the humanity of partners in an attempt to restore one’s lost humanity.

The Present Special Issue

The present Special Issue of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations assembles six articles that focus on people who experience dehumanization. These articles expand our knowledge about the two main topics presented here (i.e., metadehumanization and self-dehumanization) by analyzing further potential antecedents and consequences of these experiences. The research populations span first- and second generations of American immigrants, Black and White Americans, and Western European and Chinese samples, which together tell a story about the importance of exploring the perspectives of people who experience dehumanization in intergroup- as well as in intragroup relations.

In the first paper, El-Hout and Salomon (2022) propose that metadehumanization, induced by animal metaphors used to described one’s ingroup, may have an impact not only on one’s self-perception or feelings but also on one’s physical reactions, that is, on cardiovascular responses. The authors found that first- and second-generation U.S. immigrants (N = 150) had elevated cardiovascular threat responses and displayed poorer poststressor recovery having read a fabricated article that primed prejudicial attitudes via animal metaphors (vs. criminal metaphors) about immigrants. El-Hout and Salomon’s study highlights the importance of investigating the differential effects of dehumanizing experiences as compared to more “typical” discrimination instances.

The second article also focuses on metadehumanization by expanding knowledge about a possible antecedent: the violation of sacred values. Furthermore, the article examines how the dehumanizing experience provoked by such violation fuels reciprocal dehumanization. In four studies (total N = 1,437), Hartley and colleagues (2022) showed that violators of sacred values (i.e., invaluable personal or group core beliefs; Graham & Haidt, 2012) felt dehumanized by those who upheld these values and reciprocated this dehumanization in different intergroup and interpersonal contexts. Such violation of sacred values led to greater hostility via metadehumanization and reciprocal dehumanization, reproducing the cycle of conflict evidenced earlier in Kteily and colleagues’ (2016) studies. In addition to exploring an important antecedent of metadehumanization, Hartley and colleagues’ work thus confirmed the crucial role played by metadehumanization in the arousal of outgroup dehumanization.

The third article (Nguyen et al., 2022) focuses on the understudied link between metadehumanization and self-dehumanization (e.g., Baldissarri et al., 2014) in the specific context of the workplace. It investigates a possible underlying factor in the meta-self-dehumanization relationship that contributes to the internalization of dehumanizing perceptions, namely surface acting. Surface acting refers to a behavior in which people express unfelt emotions at work (Hochschild, 1983). The authors reasoned that surface acting is used to cope with dehumanizing treatment (e.g., Nguyen & Stinglhamber, 2020), and that such a coping strategy, in turn, generates mechanistic self-dehumanizing perceptions. To test this hypothesis, Nguyen and colleagues (2022) conducted three cross-sectional, experimental, longitudinal studies (total N = 977) showing that organizational metadehumanization led employees to engage in more surface acting, which in turn tended to increase self-dehumanization. This research is important as it underlines the paradoxical negative effect that strategies aimed at coping with metadehumanization produced on the self.

The fourth paper focuses on a particular kind of self-dehumanization, that is, self-objectification, and investigates another possible antecedent of self-dehumanizing processes. The authors explored how broader cultural factors can impact people’s humanness. In particular, cultural tightness (i.e., a culture characterized by strong norms and severe sanctioning of norm-deviant behavior; Gelfand et al., 2006) was hypothesized to be a likely antecedent of self-dehumanization. Across four studies, considering different contexts and samples (total N = 2,693), Wang and colleagues (2022) consistently provided evidence that a tight culture can increase self-objectification, leading people to acknowledge their personhood less and focus more on their instrumentality. Thus, this work highlights the importance of analyzing shared cultural values that can shape our perception of humanness.

The fifth paper shifts the focus onto how humanness can be restored. It presents the tethered humanity hypothesis (Vaes & Bastian, 2021) that suggests that victims can restore a sense of full human status when perpetrators undertake attempts at reconciliation. Vaes and colleagues (2022) conducted two studies (total N = 485) showing that ostracized victims dehumanized themselves and their ostracizers, but when a full apology was issued they regained full human status and rehumanized their perpetrators. The authors found that when perpetrators apologized, the various human perceptions (self, other, and metahumanness) became tethered. Importantly, rehumanization of the self always increased when the tendency to forgive the perpetrator increased, regardless of the perpetrator’s apology. The work of Vaes and collaborators is valuable in that it highlights the importance of investigating dehumanization processes in a dynamic way, considering all sides of the dehumanization interaction simultaneously.

In the last contribution, Howe and colleagues (2022) consider targets of group-based dehumanization not simply as passive victims but as active resistors by suggesting that victims can themselves, independently, restore their humanness to resist negative representations of their group. Three experiments (total N = 949) consistently showed that Black participants responded to a dehumanizing representation of their racial group by emphasizing their experience of uniquely human emotions versus emotions more closely associated with other animals, and by depicting themselves in more complex ways and thus reasserting their humanness. Here again, the work of Howe and collaborators is of crucial importance for those seeking positive ways out of dehumanization.

As a whole, this Special Issue represents an important step in the development of our understanding of dehumanized targets. It underlines the various antecedents and consequences of both meta- and self-dehumanization. It also provides interesting insights into how one’s or one’s group humanity could possibly be restored when undermined, but warns us about the risks associated with certain coping mechanisms (e.g., surface acting).

Research Agenda

The brief review presented here in our introduction shows that research that pays attention to the feelings of those who are experiencing dehumanization is still in its infancy in comparison to the enormous amount of knowledge that has been collected on dehumanization during the last few decades. Indeed, we can surmise that researchers have only just started to more fully invest their energy in the experience of being dehumanized in the last few years (the first studies being conducted by pioneers Bastian & Haslam in 2010, with a significant increase of interest since 2016 when Kteily and collaborators developed their work on metadehumanization). Obviously, much more should be done to better grasp the reality of those who suffer dehumanization, either because they feel treated in a dehumanized way or because they treat themselves as such. The contributions assembled in this Special Issue add to this important scientific effort and will facilitate suggestions for new directions that research could consider.

First, more research should focus on the impact of dehumanizing portrayals disseminated in the general press and media, either concerning specific individuals or targeting groups of people. Even if metaphoric language is useful to those who want to report the news in a dramatic way, research has found how detrimental the consequences of such metaphors are, not only for intergroup perceptions (e.g., Andrighetto et al., 2016; Loughnan et al., 2009; Tipler & Ruscher, 2014) but, as shown in this Special Issue (El-Hout & Salomon, 2022), for dehumanized targets’ psychological and physiological well-being. Future studies should further investigate the impact of daily portrayals of groups (national, ethnic, professional, and so on) on dehumanized targets, assessing such targets’ personal perceptions of humanness and their general well-being. Furthermore, researchers should begin to increase awareness of these phenomena in the broader society, outside academia.

Second, we should pay attention to how specific cultural, societal, or ideological features of our societies shape our humanness. Studies of materialism and narcissism (Lachowicz-Tabaczek et al., 2021; Sakalaki et al., 2016), prioritization of money (Ruttan & Lucas, 2018), inequalities (Sainz, Martinez, et al., 2021), and the present research by Wang and colleagues (2022) on tight culture, show that these factors influence our perceptions of others and of ourselves as less than fully human. Similarly, recent research by Baldissarri, Pagliaro and colleagues (2022) also suggests that the job insecurity that characterizes contemporary society can lead people to self-perceive as more object- than humanlike by self-attributing fewer human mental states. Further research should expand our knowledge about the link between cultural and societal factors and personal perceptions of humanness.

Third, research suggests that people can react to dehumanizing experiences by reasserting their humanness through various strategies, for example, through prosocial behavior (Bastian et al., 2013) and, as shown here by Howe and colleagues (2022), by reattributing humanness to the self and creating more complex self-representations. But when and why dehumanization results in negative reactions, such as reciprocal dehumanization, or in positive rehumanizing actions is still unclear. Some papers suggest ways out of self-dehumanization, such as when apologies are provided (and accepted) (Vaes et al., 2022) or when victims work to directly restore their humanness (Howe et al., 2022). Yet, rehumanization does not always occur. More research is needed to understand the factors that promote versus undermine rehumanization attempts. For example, the tendency to ruminate and to repetitively think about negative experiences and emotions (as considered by El-Hout & Salomon, 2022) can play a role in reducing the likelihood of being able to restore one’s humanness. Other variables are certainly at play. Future research could profitably seek to understand the individual or situational variables that trigger a detrimental dehumanizing cycle versus a more positive rehumanizing spiral in reaction to dehumanization.

Fourth, the latter point leads us directly to a general gap in the study of metadehumanization and self-dehumanization regarding understudied mechanisms. Nguyen and colleagues (2022) suggest that metadehumanization in the workplace plays an important role in the way employees manage their emotions (i.e., surface acting), which in turn affects the development of mechanistic self-dehumanizing perceptions. Demoulin, Nguyen, and colleagues (2021) underscore the role of threatened fundamental human needs in inducing feelings of metadehumanization. Other researchers instead focus on individual moderators that protect people from the internalization of metadehumanization. For instance, scholars have found that higher self-consciousness (Auzoult & Personnaz, 2016) or the perception of meaningful work (Auzoult, 2020) can protect workers from self-dehumanization. More research is needed to understand which factors can explain the emergence of metadehumanizing or self-dehumanizing feelings on the one hand, and which factors can foster or protect people from these dehumanizing processes, on the other.

Finally, one perspective that has, so far, been largely overlooked in the scientific literature is ingroup dehumanization, that is, the perception and treatment of one’s ingroup as less human than other groups. As far as we know, only a handful of pieces of research have considered this phenomenon; for example research by Valtorta and colleagues (2022) conducted in Italy during the COVID pandemic that found that Italian people biologically dehumanized their ingroup. Future research is needed to expand our knowledge about this phenomenon by integrating, for example, what is known about collective guilt (see Čehajić et al., 2009). Such ingroup dehumanization could, for example, lead to a disengagement from the less human ingroup or to actions aimed at the restoration of one’s ingroup humanity.

Conclusions

Although we do not doubt that the present Special Issue will be of interest to Group Processes & Intergroup Relations’ international audience, it is our hope that it will also attract the attention of scientists of all disciplines that are active in the dehumanization field (e.g., psychologists of various subdisciplines [social, organizational, health], philosophers, sociologists), and of those who conduct research on closely connected concepts (i.e., self-stigmatization, discrimination).