stereotype content model (scm) predicts differentiated prejudices

Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-GroupsNeuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups

Harris & Fiske (2006)Harris & Fiske (2006)

Stereotype Content Model (SCM)Stereotype Content Model (SCM) Predicts differentiated prejudicesPredicts differentiated prejudices

Warm (high or low): Friend or foe? Help or Warm (high or low): Friend or foe? Help or harm?harm?

Competent (high or low): Able to carry out Competent (high or low): Able to carry out intentions?intentions?

SCMSCM

2 x 2 matrix yields four emotions: Envy, Pride, 2 x 2 matrix yields four emotions: Envy, Pride, Disgust, & Pity.Disgust, & Pity. Competence

Low

High

High

Warmth

Low

Harris & Fiske (2006)

SCMSCM Disgust (low, low) is unique: it can target Disgust (low, low) is unique: it can target

either humans or nonhumans (here, either humans or nonhumans (here, people = objects)people = objects)

Are those who are stereotyped low/low Are those who are stereotyped low/low perceived as nonhumans (i.e., perceived as nonhumans (i.e., dehumanized)?dehumanized)?


SCMSCM

MRI data demonstrate mPFC is MRI data demonstrate mPFC is activated when people make activated when people make judgments about about people judgments about about people (social cognition), not objects.(social cognition), not objects.


SCMSCM Study 1: Study 1:

Present pictures depicting the four SCM Present pictures depicting the four SCM quadrants.quadrants.

Each picture rated on four emotionsEach picture rated on four emotions Question: did the pictures from each Question: did the pictures from each

quadrant elicit the predicted emotions?quadrant elicit the predicted emotions?

Quadrant

Pride Envy Pity Disgust

.70(.10) .52(.10) .83(.05) .64(.06)

Pictures in each quadrant were rated as elicitingn the predicted emotin at a rate well above chance.Standard errors are given in paraentheses.


(low/low)

(Rated disgusting)

Note: The absence of the typical neural signature for social cognition in response to people who were seen as disgusting.


InfrahumanizationInfrahumanizationLeyens et al., 2003Leyens et al., 2003

Infrahumanization: Some humans are considered Infrahumanization: Some humans are considered less human than othersless human than others

The essence of humanness: language, The essence of humanness: language, intelligence, & secondary emotionsintelligence, & secondary emotions

But privilege can affect language and intelligenceBut privilege can affect language and intelligence Secondary emotions: Response times shorter Secondary emotions: Response times shorter

when secondary emotions associated with human when secondary emotions associated with human (e.g., hair) versus nonhuman features (e.g., fur)(e.g., hair) versus nonhuman features (e.g., fur)

Secondary emotions associated with humans, Secondary emotions associated with humans, more so than animalsmore so than animals

Primary, Secondary, & Tertiary Primary, Secondary, & Tertiary EmotionsEmotions (Plutchnik, 1993)(Plutchnik, 1993)


Ingroup members more often select and Ingroup members more often select and associate secondary emotions with the ingroup; associate secondary emotions with the ingroup; primary emotions associated more often with primary emotions associated more often with outgroup (Leyens et al., 2001)outgroup (Leyens et al., 2001)

Using Implicit Association Test: Ingroup members Using Implicit Association Test: Ingroup members (French or Spanish) more readily associated with (French or Spanish) more readily associated with primary emotions; outgroup members (Arabs or primary emotions; outgroup members (Arabs or Flemish) more readily associated with secondary Flemish) more readily associated with secondary emotions than the reverse combination (Paladino emotions than the reverse combination (Paladino et al., 2002)et al., 2002)

Infrahumanization Effect Infrahumanization Effect Leyens et al., 2003Leyens et al., 2003

Is reciprocal: for dominant and non-Is reciprocal: for dominant and non-dominant groups dominant groups

Increases with increases in-group Increases with increases in-group identificationidentification

Appears in conflict and non-conflict Appears in conflict and non-conflict situations, though valence might be a situations, though valence might be a factorfactor


Infrahumanization is reducedInfrahumanization is reduced

When perspective taking is used (Cortez, When perspective taking is used (Cortez, 2002)2002)

When members of the outgroup are When members of the outgroup are individualized (i.e., given first or last name!) individualized (i.e., given first or last name!) (Leyens et al., 2003) (Leyens et al., 2003)

However, individualizing an outgroup member However, individualizing an outgroup member does not mean outgroup generalization will does not mean outgroup generalization will take place (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000)take place (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000)

Enemy ImagesEnemy Images

Diabolical Enemy Image (White, 1965)Diabolical Enemy Image (White, 1965)

Image of the Enemy (Frank, 1967)Image of the Enemy (Frank, 1967)

Enemy Images (Holsti & Fagan, 1967)Enemy Images (Holsti & Fagan, 1967)

Image Theory (Cottam, 1977) Image Theory (Cottam, 1977)

Mirror Images (Bronfenbrenner, 1986)Mirror Images (Bronfenbrenner, 1986)

Enemy Images: A Cognitive Perspective Enemy Images: A Cognitive Perspective (Silverstein, 1989)(Silverstein, 1989)

Image TheoryImage TheoryAlexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)Alexander, Levin, & Henry (2005)

Fiske provided a reductionistic view of Fiske provided a reductionistic view of stereotypesstereotypes

In contrast, Alexander et al. are linking-In contrast, Alexander et al. are linking-up stereotypes with political structuresup stereotypes with political structures

Structural features of the relationship Structural features of the relationship yield various image typesyield various image types

Providing a more differentiated view of Providing a more differentiated view of imagesimages


Structural Features of Relationship

1. Goal Compatibility (intent)

2. Relative Power (capability)

3. Relative Cultural Status

Image

Image Theory: Enemy as One Image Image Theory: Enemy as One Image TypeType

Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)

Structural Features of Relationship

1. Goal Compatibility (Low)

2. Relative Power (Equal)

3. Relative Cultural Status (Equal)

Enemy

Image Type

Enemy Image Enemy Image & Spiral Model of Interaction& Spiral Model of Interaction

EnemyImage

Attack or Deter

Looseningof Moral

Constraints

Threat


Assumption: Accurate diagnosis (of Assumption: Accurate diagnosis (of relationship) leads to more accurate relationship) leads to more accurate predictions of other nationpredictions of other nation’’s reactionss reactions

International Images Vary Geohistorically:International Images Vary Geohistorically: US-Soviet Image during Cold War = EnemyUS-Soviet Image during Cold War = Enemy Iranian and Iraqi Images of US: From Ally to Iranian and Iraqi Images of US: From Ally to

Imperialist (Herrmann & Fischerkeller, 1995)Imperialist (Herrmann & Fischerkeller, 1995) There is Within Group Variation in ImagesThere is Within Group Variation in Images

Individual difference factors? Individual difference factors?


What images characterize Arab nationsWhat images characterize Arab nations ’’ views of views of the US? the US?

Best guess: (1) incompatible goals, (2) US more Best guess: (1) incompatible goals, (2) US more powerful, and (3) US culturally inferior (Lewis, powerful, and (3) US culturally inferior (Lewis, 1990) = Barbarian1990) = Barbarian

Intragroup variations: Arabs should have Intragroup variations: Arabs should have expecially favorable image of their group relative expecially favorable image of their group relative to others if theyto others if they have strong group identification (according to SIT)have strong group identification (according to SIT) low social dominance orientation (i.e., do not favor low social dominance orientation (i.e., do not favor

and identify strongly with powerful groups)and identify strongly with powerful groups)

Image TheoryImage TheoryAlexander, levin, & Henry (2005)Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)

Group Identification and Social Dominance Group Identification and Social Dominance Orientation were individual difference Orientation were individual difference variablesvariables

It was expected that Group identification It was expected that Group identification (e.g., High Arab, Palestinian, or Muslim (e.g., High Arab, Palestinian, or Muslim identity; Low Christian and Western identity) identity; Low Christian and Western identity) and SDO would affect the degree of and SDO would affect the degree of endorsement of Barbarian image, endorsement of Barbarian image, independent of Perceived Structure of the independent of Perceived Structure of the Relationship, Relationship,

Image TheoryImage TheoryAlexander, levin, & Henry (2005)Alexander, levin, & Henry (2005)

Method: Query (a) Lebanese studentsMethod: Query (a) Lebanese students ’’ perceived perceived international relationships and images of the US, international relationships and images of the US, (b) cultural and religious identities, and (c) social (b) cultural and religious identities, and (c) social dominance orientationdominance orientation

Results: Results: (1) Perceived structure (pattern) of relationship: (1) Perceived structure (pattern) of relationship:

incompatible goals, high power, low statusincompatible goals, high power, low status (2) Images: Barbarian most strongly endorsed(2) Images: Barbarian most strongly endorsed (3) (1) & (2) highly correlated(3) (1) & (2) highly correlated (4) status negatively correlated with barbarian(4) status negatively correlated with barbarian


Individual OrientationIndividual Orientation rr Partial Partial

rr

Arab IdentificationArab Identification .32***.32*** .27**.27**

Palestinian IdentificationPalestinian Identification .39***.39*** .32***.32***

Muslim IdentificationMuslim Identification .19+.19+ .06.06

Christian IdentificationChristian Identification -.30*-.30* -.29*-.29*

Western IdentificationWestern Identification -.38***-.38*** -.30***-.30***

Social Dominance OrientationSocial Dominance Orientation -.30***-.30*** -.31***-.31***+p

+p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 2. Correlations between Individual Orientations and the Barbarian Image of the U.S., andPartial Correlations Controlling for Relative Power, Status, and Goal Incompatibility of the U.S.

Toward a measure of patriotic and Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudesnationalistic attitudes

(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)

Floyd Allport hints at such a distinction (1927)Floyd Allport hints at such a distinction (1927) Research in 1940s and 50s blur the distinctionResearch in 1940s and 50s blur the distinction Research on the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno Research on the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno

et al., 1950) blurred the distinctionet al., 1950) blurred the distinction One of the three ethnocentrism scales: Patriotism …One of the three ethnocentrism scales: Patriotism …

““blind attachment to certain national cultural values, blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group ways, and uncritical conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other national as outgroups (p. 107).rejection of other national as outgroups (p. 107).””

Doob (1964)Doob (1964) ““There is no reason to suppose that the personality traits There is no reason to suppose that the personality traits

associated with love of country are the same as those associated with love of country are the same as those connected with hostility toward foreign countries or connected with hostility toward foreign countries or foreigners (p. 128).foreigners (p. 128).””

Patriotic and Nationalistic Patriotic and Nationalistic AttitudesAttitudes

Mostly UCLA students (N = 239)Mostly UCLA students (N = 239) Factor Analysis: six factor solution, Factor Analysis: six factor solution,

accounting for 38% of the varianceaccounting for 38% of the variance Factors: Patriotism, Nationalism, Factors: Patriotism, Nationalism,

Internationalism, Civil Liberties, Internationalism, Civil Liberties, World Government, Smugness!World Government, Smugness!

(Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)


Patriotism


Nationalism

Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)

Internationism


Civil Liberties


World Government


Smugness


Discriminant Validity

Patriotism and NationalismPatriotism and Nationalism

Only 8 percent of variance accounted for by civil Only 8 percent of variance accounted for by civil liberties, world government, and smugnessliberties, world government, and smugness

Patriotism: Attachment to nationPatriotism: Attachment to nation Nationalism: National superiority and dominanceNationalism: National superiority and dominance Internationalism: Emphasis on sharing, welfare, Internationalism: Emphasis on sharing, welfare,

empathy (egalitarian values)empathy (egalitarian values)

P N

P

N



Patriotism & Nationalism:Statistically and functionally distinguishable

stereotype content model (scm) predicts differentiated prejudices

Documents

predicted emotions

intelligencesecondary

fursecondary emotions

associate secondary

groupsharris fiske

ingroup primary emotions

tertiary emotions plutchnik

outgroup leyens