nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

19.12.2018

Infrahumanization and Socio-Structural Variables: The Role of Legitimacy, Ingroup Identification, and System Justification Beliefs

verfasst von: Silvia Russo, Cristina Onesta Mosso

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As there is a robust tendency to support system-legitimizing beliefs by appealing to stereotypes or ideologies, we examined the role played by the perception of the status quo in relation to the infrahumanization bias. We compared this bias in high versus low-status group members and tested the mediating role of system justification beliefs and ingroup identification. The results of a moderated-mediated regression model (N = 238) showed that the perception of legitimacy of one’s own status had differential effects on the infrahumanization bias: The perception of legitimacy was positively associated with the endorsement of system justification beliefs and negatively associated with ingroup identification among low-status group members, whereas the perception of legitimacy was positively associated with ingroup identification among high-status group members. In both groups, ingroup identification was positively correlated with the tendency to infrahumanize the outgroup, while the endorsement of system justification beliefs was linked to the infrahumanization among low-status group members only. The findings highlight that the Social Identity Theory and the System Justification Theory can be fruitfully combined to explain infrahumanization tendencies.

Vorheriger Artikel Is Justice More Important than Would Be Expected? The Role of Justice in Management Control Systems to Generate Goal Congruence, Trust in Managers and Fairness Perceptions

Nächster Artikel Operationalizing a Conceptual Model of Colorism in Local Policing

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

In the pre-test, we used a composite measure of social distance, namely whether the respondents thought it was acceptable, on a scale from 1 to 9, to have members of different immigrant groups as neighbor, colleagues, or spouse. The immigrant groups considered were the largest groups of immigrants from Latin America in the city were the study was carried out (Colombians, Peruvians, and Ecuadoreans). We also included social distance measures for other large immigrant groups (Moroccans, Romanians, and Albanians). Results of this pre-test showed no significant differences in perceptions of social distance between Colombians and Peruvians, t(20) = − 0.058, p = .954, and between Colombians and Ecuadoreans, t(20) = 0.666, p = .513, and significant differences between Colombians and Moroccans, Romanians, and Albanians (lowest t test, t(20) = 3.684, p = .001).

Alin, A. (2010). Multicollinearity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(3), 370–374.CrossRef

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2000). You can’t always do what you want: Social identity and self-presentational determinants of the choice to work for a low-status group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 891–906.CrossRef

Bettencourt, B., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 520.PubMedCrossRef

Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 765–785.PubMedCrossRef

Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692–703.CrossRef

Caner, A., & Pedersen, P. J. (2018). Does poverty among immigrants adapt to country of residence? Turks in Germany and Denmark. International Migration. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12522.

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M. P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 135–143.CrossRef

Demoulin, S., Cortes, B. P., Viki, T. G., Rodriguez, A. P., Rodriguez, R. T., Paladino, M. P., et al. (2009). The role of in-group identification in infra-humanization. International Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 4–11.PubMedCrossRef

Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., Paladino, M. P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 71–96.CrossRef

Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., Rodríguez-Torres, R., Rodríguez-Pérez, A., Paladino, P. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Motivation to support a desired conclusion versus motivation to avoid an undesirable conclusion: The case of infra-humanization. International Journal of Psychology, 40(6), 416–428.CrossRef

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.CrossRef

Ellemers, N., Van Knippenberg, A., De Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(6), 497–513.CrossRef

Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 233–246.PubMedCrossRef

Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 766.CrossRef

Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2001). On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: Norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 143–154.CrossRef

Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., Kashima, Y., & Bain, P. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 55–85.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Henry, P. J., & Saul, A. (2006). The development of system justification in the developing world. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 365–378.CrossRef

Hogg, M. A., & Mullin, B. (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 249–279). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Iatridis, T. (2013). Occupational status differences in attributions of uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 431–449.PubMedCrossRef

Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jost, J. T. (2011). System justification theory as compliment, complement, and corrective to theories of social identification and social dominance. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 223–263). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In R. D. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–203). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., & Carvallo, M. R. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 586–602.CrossRef

Jost, J. T., Wakslak, C. J., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). System justification theory and the alleviation of emotional distress: Palliative effects of ideology in an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. In K. A. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Justice (pp. 181–211). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRef

Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.PubMedCrossRef

Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126.CrossRef

Lewin, K. (1941). Self-hatred among Jews. Contemporary Jewish Record, 4(3), 219–232.

Leyens, J-Ph. (2009). Retrospective and prospective thoughts about infrahumanisation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 807–817.CrossRef

Leyens, J. P., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R., et al. (2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism The 2002 Tajfel Lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703–717.CrossRef

Leyens, J-Ph, Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., & Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 139–172.CrossRef

Leyens, J-Ph, Paladino, M. P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., et al. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 186–197.CrossRef

Leyens, J-Ph, Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., Vaes, J., et al. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395–411.CrossRef

Mosso, C., Briante, G., Aiello, A., & Russo, S. (2013). The role of legitimizing ideologies as predictors of ambivalent sexism in young people: Evidence from Italy and the USA. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 1–17.CrossRef

Newheiser, A. K., Dunham, Y., Merrill, A., Hoosain, L., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Preference for high status predicts implicit outgroup bias among children from low-status groups. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1081–1090.PubMedCrossRef

Pacilli, G., Roccato, M., Pagliaro, S., & Russo, S. (2016). From political opponents to enemies? The role of perceived morality distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 360–373.CrossRef

Paladino, M. P., Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez, R., Rodriguez, A., Gaunt, R., & Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions with the ingroup and the outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(2), 105–117.CrossRef

Paladino, M. P., & Vaes, J. (2009). Ours is human: On the pervasiveness of infra-humanization in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 237–251.PubMedCrossRef

Pehrson, S., & Green, E. G. (2010). Who we are and who can join us: National identity content and entry criteria for new immigrants. Journal of Social Issues, 66(4), 695–716.CrossRef

Pereira, C., Vala, J., & Leyens, J. P. (2009). From infra-humanization to discrimination: The mediation of symbolic threat needs egalitarian norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 336–344.CrossRef

Pérez, A. R., Rodríguez, N. D., Rodríguez, V. B., Leyens, J. P., & Vaes, J. (2011). Infra-humanization of outgroups throughout the world. The role of similarity, intergroup friendship, knowledge of the outgroup, and status. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 27(3), 679–687.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25(6), 823–844.CrossRef

Russo, S. (2017). The subjective group dynamics in negative campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 415–423.CrossRef

Sengupta, N. K., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). The status-legitimacy hypothesis revisited: Ethnic-group differences in general and dimension-specific legitimacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 324–340.PubMedCrossRef

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65–93.CrossRef

Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27–60). London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2009). On the social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Turner, J. C. (1980). Fairness or discrimination in intergroup behaviour? A reply to Branthwaite, Doyle and Lightbown. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 131–147.CrossRef

Turner, J. C., & Brown, R. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives and intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201–234). London: Academic Press.

Vaes, J., Leyens, J-Ph, Paladino, M. P., & Miranda, M. P. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 64–106.CrossRef

Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J. P., & Giovanazzi, A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: the implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1016–1034.PubMedCrossRef

Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., & Leyens, J. P. (2002). The lost e-mail: Prosocial reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 521–534.PubMedCrossRef

Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18(3), 267–274.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Infrahumanization and Socio-Structural Variables: The Role of Legitimacy, Ingroup Identification, and System Justification Beliefs
verfasst von: Silvia Russo
Cristina Onesta Mosso
Publikationsdatum: 19.12.2018
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-018-0321-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Is Justice More Important than Would Be Expected? The Role of Justice in Management Control Systems to Generate Goal Congruence, Trust in Managers and Fairness Perceptions

Correction to: Operationalizing a Conceptual Model of Colorism in Local Policing

Operationalizing a Conceptual Model of Colorism in Local Policing

Journey Forward: The Black Experience in Context

Perceived Unfairness and Psychological Distress: Less Harmful as Age Increases?