Dehumanization, Retributive and Restorative Justice, and Aggressive Versus Diplomatic Intergroup Conflict Resolution Strategies
ABSTRACT The desire for justice can escalate or facilitate resolution of intergroup conflicts. Two studies investigated retributive and restorative notions of justice as the mediating factor of the effect of perceived outgroup sentience-an aspect of (mechanistic) dehumanization referring to the emotional depth attributed to others-on intergroup conflict resolution. Study 1 showed that for Palestinians, who see themselves as victims, perceived sentience of Israelis decreased retributive but increased restorative notions of justice, which, ultimately, increased support for conflict resolution by negotiation rather than political violence. Study 2 partially replicated Study 1's findings with Jewish Israelis. The role of perceived sentience and its relationship to retributive and restorative notions of justice in protracted and nonprotracted conflicts and their resolution is discussed.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Emanuele Castano, Aug 12, 2015
- SourceAvailable from: Chiara Volpato[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The present research explores the distinct effects of animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization on willingness to help natural disaster victims. We examined Japanese and Haitians, two national groups recently struck by earthquakes. We showed that Italian participants differently dehumanized the two outgroups: Japanese were attributed low human nature (dehumanized as automata), whereas Haitians were attributed low human uniqueness (dehumanized as animal-like). Ninety participants were then randomly assigned to the Japanese or Haitian target group condition. Mediation analyses showed that animalistic dehumanization decreased willingness to help Haitians, whereas mechanistic dehumanization decreased willingness to help Japanese, even when controlling for attitudes. Importantly, reduced empathy explained the effects of both forms of dehumanization on intergroup helping.British Journal of Social Psychology 03/2014; 53(3). DOI:10.1111/bjso.12066 · 1.76 Impact Factor