Dehumanization, Retributive and Restorative Justice, and Aggressive Versus Diplomatic Intergroup Conflict Resolution Strategies

1University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Impact Factor: 2.52). 02/2013; 39(2):181-92. DOI: 10.1177/0146167212472208
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Emanuele Castano, Oct 01, 2015
166 Reads
  • Source
    • "A second plausible mechanism is moral disengagement (see Bandura, 1999; Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Leidner et al., 2013; Leidner, Castano, Zaiser, & Giner-Sorolla, 2010). Perceivers may deny agency to harmful agents as a means of legitimating any aggressive action taken against the agent as retribution for their crime. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is clear that harmful agents are targets of severe condemnation, but it is much less clear how perceivers conceptualize the agency of harmful agents. The current studies tested two competing predictions made by moral typecasting theory and the dehumanization literature. Across six studies, harmful agents were perceived to possess less agency than neutral (non-offending) and benevolent agents, consistent with a dehumanization perspective but inconsistent with the assumptions of moral typecasting theory. This was observed for human targets (Studies 1-2b, and 4-5) and corporations (Study 3), and across various gradations of harmfulness (Studies 3-4). Importantly, denial of agency to harmful agents occurred even when controlling for perceptions of the agent’s likeability (Studies 2a and 2b) and while using two different operationalizations of agency (Study 2a). Study 5 showed that harmful agents are denied agency primarily through an inferential process, and less through motivations to see the agent punished. Across all six studies, harmful agents were deemed less worthy of moral standing as a consequence of their harmful conduct and this reduction in moral standing was mediated through reductions in agency. Our findings clarify a current tension in the moral cognition literature, which have direct implications for the moral typecasting framework.
    Cognition 01/2016; 146:33-47. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.009 · 3.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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