The Development and Validation of a Dehumanization Measure Within Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Despite the emergence of research into interpersonal dehumanization, there has been little by way of empirical investigation of the phenomenon within the context of romantic relationships. To address this, we introduce and validate the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS), a self-report measure of dehumanization perpetration and targeting within close relationships. In Study 1 (N = 1251, M age = 25.35, SD = 6.03), confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the dimensionality of interpersonal dehumanization may be more nuanced than first thought. Specifically, a four factor first-order structure [comprised of factors that relate to denials of human uniqueness (i.e., immature and unrefined) and human nature (i.e., exploitable and emotionless) was found to be the best fit to the data]. These results were replicated on a different sample in Study 2 (N = 847, M age = 23.40, SD = 6.43)—in addition to the assessment of criterion-related validity. Study 3 (N = 328, M age = 23.40, SD = 6.43) cross-validated the criterion-related validity reported in Study 2, and in addition, highlights that dehumanization is also associated with emotional and physical abuse. This research extends theory on interpersonal dehumanization and provides an empirically validated measure to reliably assess the occurrence of dehumanization within romantic relationships.

Full text

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 06 December 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02754
Edited by:
África Borges,
University of La Laguna, Spain
Reviewed by:
Brock Bastian,
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Laura López-Romero,
University of Santiago
de Compostela, Spain
*Correspondence:
Bengianni Pizzirani
bengianni.pizzirani@monash.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Quantitative Psychology
and Measurement,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 23 May 2019
Accepted: 22 November 2019
Published: 06 December 2019
Citation:
Pizzirani B, Karantzas GC and
Mullins ER (2019) The Development
and Validation of a Dehumanization
Measure Within Romantic
Relationships.
Front. Psychol. 10:2754.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02754
The Development and Validation of a
Dehumanization Measure Within
Romantic Relationships
Bengianni Pizzirani1,2*, Gery C. Karantzas1and Ellie R. Mullins1
1Science of Adult Relationships, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia,
2School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Despite the emergence of research into interpersonal dehumanization, there has been
little by way of empirical investigation of the phenomenon within the context of
romantic relationships. To address this, we introduce and validate the Dehumanization
in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS), a self-report measure of dehumanization
perpetration and targeting within close relationships. In Study 1 (N= 1251, M
age = 25.35, SD = 6.03), confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the dimensionality
of interpersonal dehumanization may be more nuanced than first thought. Specifically, a
four factor first-order structure [comprised of factors that relate to denials of human
uniqueness (i.e., immature and unrefined) and human nature (i.e., exploitable and
emotionless) was found to be the best fit to the data]. These results were replicated
on a different sample in Study 2 (N= 847, M age = 23.40, SD = 6.43)—in addition
to the assessment of criterion-related validity. Study 3 (N= 328, M age = 23.40,
SD = 6.43) cross-validated the criterion-related validity reported in Study 2, and in
addition, highlights that dehumanization is also associated with emotional and physical
abuse. This research extends theory on interpersonal dehumanization and provides an
empirically validated measure to reliably assess the occurrence of dehumanization within
romantic relationships.
Keywords: dehumanization, interpersonal relationships, confirmatory factor analysis, measurement, abuse,
maltreatment
INTRODUCTION
Dehumanization—defined as the denial of uniquely or fundamentally human characteristics to
another—is considered to occur across a range of contexts including moral atrocities related to
ethnic cleansing, inter-racial conflicts, as well as medical and organizational settings (Bain et al.,
2014;Haslam and Stratemeyer, 2016). However, theoretical advancements over the past decade,
suggest that dehumanization is not limited to intergroup conflicts or blatant acts of atrocity.
Rather, dehumanization can take the form of implicit and commonplace behaviors that manifest
within interpersonal contexts, but nonetheless, damage relational bonds (e.g., social ostracism
and contempt; Bastian and Haslam, 2011;Bastian et al., 2014). For example, being socially
ostracized or treated instrumentally (i.e., as if one’s value is based solely on what they have to offer
another) by a friend.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 2
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
Despite the emergence of research into interpersonal
dehumanization, there has been little by way of empirical
investigation of dehumanization within the context of romantic
relationships. Nevertheless, many of the behaviors identified
as negative and toxic within romantic relationships such as
hostility, ridicule, and being controlling reflect dehumanization
(Pizzirani and Karantzas, 2019). Specifically, such behaviors deny
the target (i.e., the romantic partner) their sense of agency, or
treats them as if they have no feelings or lack intelligence (Bastian
and Haslam, 2011). Moreover, interpersonal dehumanization
within close relationships is often characteristic of common and
subtle maltreatments, such as feigning disinterest, acting in ways
that may disrespect another, or minor exploitative acts such as
requesting favors that see another treated as a means to an end
(Bastian et al., 2014).
Through a series of studies, Bastian and Haslam (2011) found
that targets of a range of common maltreatments experienced
dehumanization. Such work demonstrates that the actions of
close others—such as romantic partners—play an important
hand in people’s experiences of dehumanization. Furthermore,
acts of dehumanization within intimate contexts are likely to
disrupt the positive functions of romantic relationships, which
include the provision of support to encourage competence and
personal growth within a partner (Feeney and Collins, 2014), and
to meet a partner’s fundamental needs for comfort and security
(Feeney, 2009).
Given the increasing interest in interpersonal
dehumanization, it is surprising that there is little by way
of dehumanization research within the context of intimate
relationships. We argue that this dearth in research is for two
reasons. Firstly, there exists no target or perpetrator assessment
of dehumanization within romantic relationships. This is despite
findings that demonstrate interpersonal dehumanization is
most often perpetrated by people within one’s close social
network, which includes romantic partners (Adams, 2014).
Secondly, conceptual ambiguity surrounds the dimensionality
of interpersonal dehumanization (and dehumanization
more generally). For example, some research suggests that
interpersonal dehumanization is best conceptualized as a two-
dimensional construct (i.e., the denial of human nature and the
denial of human uniqueness; Bastian and Haslam, 2010, 2011),
while other studies suggest that interpersonal dehumanization
may be unidimensional (Bastian et al., 2012a,b, 2014). To
address these limitations, we report on three studies in which
we developed and validated a measure to assess dehumanization
(from both target and perpetrator perspectives) within romantic
relationships, as well as determine the dimensional structure
of the construct.
Traditionally, dehumanization was viewed as an extreme
phenomenon that took place within the contexts of mass violence
(i.e., mass shootings), intense conflict (i.e., the Syrian War,
Kelman, 1976) and moral atrocities (i.e., the genocide against
the Tutsi in Rwanda, Bandura, 1999). However, since this early
work, dehumanization has been acknowledged to be a commonly
experienced phenomenon within interpersonal contexts (such as
couple, family, and peer relationships) that can include subtle
(e.g., Leyens et al., 2000) and seemingly innocuous maltreatments
such as being treated with condescension, contempt, or anger
(e.g., Bastian and Haslam, 2011).
Up until the last decade, dehumanization was described
as a unidimensional construct such that it reflected denying
individuals the human qualities that separate them from animals
(e.g., Leyens et al., 2000). In an attempt to provide a more
comprehensive conceptualization of dehumanization, Haslam
(2006) proposed a model of dehumanization comprising of
two-dimensions. According to Haslam, dehumanization can
entail behaviors beyond likening an individual or group to
an animal. Haslam proposed that people also tend to engage
in dehumanization that likens an individual or group to
inanimate objects, such as machines and robots. To this end,
these two distinct denials of humanness yield two-dimensions
of dehumanization.
According to this two-dimensional perspective (Haslam,
2006), dehumanization can involve the denial of uniquely human
characteristics and characteristics reflective of human nature.
When denied uniquely human qualities (also referred to as
‘animalistic’ dehumanization), people are likened to animals and
seen as primitive, inferior, irrational, childlike, or unintelligent.
Specifically, people are denied attributes such as self-control,
civility, competency, social refinement, agency (e.g., the ability
to plan and think for oneself) and maturity (Haslam et al.,
2013). When denied human nature qualities (also referred to as
‘mechanistic’ dehumanization), people are likened to objects and
machines and seen as superficial, preprogramed, cold, or lacking
emotion (Bastian and Haslam, 2011;Haslam et al., 2013). This
form of dehumanization involves denying people attributes such
as emotionality, cognitive flexibility, curiosity, and interpersonal
warmth (Haslam et al., 2013).
The two-dimensional conceptualization of dehumanization
(Haslam, 2006) has received considerable support from a number
of studies (for review see Haslam, 2015). However, recent
research again suggests a unidimensional conceptualization of
dehumanization may be more appropriate within interpersonal
contexts. For example, across four studies Bastian et al.
(2012a) identified a unidimensional factor solution for
dehumanization1(as opposed to a two-factor solution),
suggesting that the denial of human nature and human
uniqueness may be subsumed under a single dimension.
Thus, although a number of studies support the distinction
between human uniqueness and human nature (see Haslam,
2015), recent research has brought this conceptualization into
question, especially within the interpersonal context (e.g.,
Bastian et al., 2012b).
The issues regarding the dimensionality of interpersonal
dehumanization may, in part, be a function of the history of
the measurement of dehumanization (which has stemmed
largely from intergroup research of the phenomenon).
Specifically, assessment has largely involved either single
item measures or multi-item perceptions of humanness traits.
Single item measures, for instance, assess a particular group’s
1Bastian and colleagues focused on the self-dehumanizing consequences of social
ostracism and in doing so directly measured participants’ perceptions of their self-
humanity after a dehumanizing experience.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 3
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
evolutionary progress on a question depicting the ascent of
man (Kteily et al., 2015). However, this measure only assesses
animalistic dehumanization (e.g., perceiving others as ‘savage’
and ‘barbaric’) and not the denial of human nature.
Self-report perceptions of humanness involve rating a set
of personality-like characteristics as reflecting either human
uniqueness or human nature (e.g., Haslam et al., 2005;Loughnan
and Haslam, 2006). Derivatives of these measures assess the
extent to which these traits are perceived within the self,
and/or ascribed to others (e.g., Bain et al., 2009;Bastian et al.,
2012b). Other self-report measures assess perceptions of having
experienced dehumanization (e.g., Bastian and Haslam, 2010,
2011). However, while these measures have been used to explicitly
assess denials of human uniqueness and human nature, recent
findings suggest either two semi-independent factors or two
highly correlated factors with researchers collapsing across these
dimensions to yield a single dehumanization factor (see Bastian
et al., 2012a,b). In addition, these measures suffer from three
further limitations when assessing dehumanization within the
context of close relationships.
Firstly, the vast majority of existing self-report assessments
focus on ascribing or evaluating human characteristics
rather than explicitly measuring behaviors that reflect
dehumanization—that is—the actual treatment of someone
as less than human. Within close relationships, the interpersonal
processes that govern relationship functioning often entail a
behavioral component [e.g., conflict patterns (Eldridge and
Christensen, 2002), the provision of social support (Feeney and
Collins, 2014), and the demonstration of intimacy (Laurenceau
et al., 1998)]. To this end, it would be remiss of dehumanization
assessments to not capture behavioral manifestations of the
construct in close relationships.
Secondly, measures to date (largely because of the field’s focus
on the intergroup context) reflect dehumanization attitudes or
perceptions toward people or groups in general. However, within
the context of close relationships, the fidelity of assessment can
be higher and the predictive validity of the measure greater, when
the assessment focuses on a specific individual (e.g., romantic
partner, peer, or parent; Fraley et al., 2011).
Finally, studies into dehumanization tend to focus, and
therefore assess, perceptions or attitudes regarding being
either the perpetrator of dehumanization or the target of
dehumanization, but not both (e.g., Haslam et al., 2005;Kteily
et al., 2015). Nevertheless, within an interpersonal context
such as romantic relationships, dehumanization should be
considered dyadic in nature. In this way a person’s experiences
of dehumanization will entail either treating one’s partner
as less than human (i.e., perpetration) and/or being the
target of dehumanization enacted by one’s partner. Hence, a
comprehensive measurement of the construct within the context
of intimate relationships should involve the assessment of
dehumanization from both perspectives.
In light of these limitations, it is necessary to develop
a psychometrically sound measure of romantic relationship
dehumanization. Moreover, the development of such a measure
can help relationship scholars better understand the role of
dehumanization in the manifestation of aversive relationship
behaviors [e.g., cycles of violence (Bastian et al., 2014) or intimate
partner aggression].
The first aim of this paper is to determine the dimensionality
of dehumanization within romantic relationships by
comparing the two most common conceptualizations of
interpersonal dehumanization proposed within the literature—
the unidimensional structure (as reported by Bastian et al.,
2012a,b) and the two-dimensional structure (reflecting
Haslam, 2006 dual model of dehumanization). The second
aim is to develop and psychometrically assess (i.e., construct
validity and criterion-related validity) a measure of romantic
relationship dehumanization that captures both perpetrator and
target perspectives.
The development and psychometric evaluation of this new
measure, titled the ‘Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships
Scale’ (DIRRS), is reported across three Studies. Study 1 reports
on the initial development and construct validity of the DIRRS
and includes a comparison of the proposed unidimensional
and two-dimensional structures. Study 2 reports on a cross-
validation of the DIRRS and extends the psychometric evaluation
to criterion-related validity (i.e., concurrent validity). Specifically,
a series of measures pertaining to relationship functioning such
as relationship quality, patterns of communication and negative
interactions, providing care for one’s partner, and maintaining
positive partner regard are used to determine concurrent validity.
Study 3 attempts to replicate the criterion-related validity
findings of Study 2 but extends on this to explore the associations
between dehumanization and overt emotional and physical abuse
within romantic relationships.
STUDY 1
Study 1 reports on the development of the DIRRS and
the psychometric evaluation of the measure (i.e., construct
validation), thus identifying the optimal factor structure and
determining the internal consistency (i.e., reliability) of the scales
that constitute the DIRRS. Given the construct of interpersonal
dehumanization has been articulated to constitute either a single
dimension or two-dimensions it was important to: (1) develop
an item pool that captured the full breadth of the construct
across these differing conceptualizations, and, (2) statistically
model and compare the unidimensional and two-dimensional
conceptualizations of interpersonal dehumanization.
Overview of Item Pool Development
The development of the DIRRS involved deriving items that
captured the definitional properties of both the unidimensional
and two-dimensional conceptualizations of interpersonal
dehumanization, as well as the full range of hurtful relationship
behaviors suggested in the literature to represent interpersonal
denials of humanness (for review see Pizzirani and Karantzas,
2019). A literature search was also conducted to identify past
measures within the general field of dehumanization research.
Using the definitional features of human uniqueness (i.e.,
intelligence, self-control, civility, competency, social refinement,
and maturity) and human nature (i.e., the ability to experience
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 4
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
and express emotions, cognitive flexibility, and interpersonal
warmth), the relational denials of humanness identified by
Pizzirani and Karantzas (2019), and drawing on Bastian
and Haslam (2011) measure of dehumanization2, an initial
pool of 30 items were developed that could be equally
framed to capture both perpetrator and target perspectives of
romantic dehumanization.
Modeling the Dimensional Structure of
Romantic Relationship Dehumanization
The construct validation approach for Study 1 involved the
a priori modeling and comparison of two factor structures. The
first of these factor structures (Figure 1, Model 1) depicted
dehumanization as a unidimensional construct, such that all
items were modeled to load onto a global dehumanization factor.
This factor structure draws on recent empirical evidence (as
well as early theorizing on the concept of dehumanization)
to suggest that the construct is best represented as unitary in
nature (e.g., Bastian et al., 2012a,b, 2014). The second factor
structure (Figure 1, Model 2) depicted dehumanization as a
two-dimensional construct constituting the denial of human
uniqueness and the denial of human nature. This factor structure
represents Haslam (2006) dual model of dehumanization. Given
the suggestion that interpersonal dehumanization may reflect
quite nuanced manifestations of dehumanization (e.g., Pizzirani
and Karantzas, 2019) we predicted that modeling the two-
dimensional conceptualization on the DIRRS would provide
better fit to the data than the unidimensional conceptualization.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 1251 participants (39.2% men, 60.1%
women, 0.6% gender not specified) recruited online from
social networking sites and online forums (e.g., Facebook
and Reddit). The sample consisted of participants from the
United States (54.8%), Canada (10.6%), Australia (8.6%), and the
United Kingdom (8.2%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to
63 years (M= 25.35, SD = 6.03) and were all in a current romantic
relationship (Mrelationship length = 3.33 years, SD = 3.83).
Relationship status of the sample comprised of individuals who
were steadily dating (49.9%), cohabiting (25.7%), engaged (8.1%),
and married (17.4%).
Materials and Procedure
This study received ethics approval from the Deakin University’s
Human Ethics Committee. The DIRRS is presented in Appendix
A. An initial pool of 30 items was created and items were framed
to capture both perpetrator and target perspectives of romantic
relationship dehumanization. Two experts then independently
reviewed and rated the face-validity of all 30 items. A face-validity
approach was used to ensure that the generated items were judged
to appropriately assess the intended construct (e.g., Murphy and
Davidshofer, 1988;Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994;Hardesty and
2After reading a vignette in which they were the target of a particular maltreatment,
participants were required to rate the extent to which the perpetrator viewed them
as fully human (e.g., “the other person doesn’t see me as an individual”).
Bearden, 2004) and to limit the exclusive reliance on empirical
data reduction approaches such as Exploratory Factor Analysis.
The face-validation of items was based on three criteria.
These were the extent to which each item: (1) captured
the unidimensional and two-dimensional conceptualizations of
dehumanization, (2) reflected dehumanization within romantic
relationships, and (3) applied to both perpetrator and target
perspectives of dehumanization. The two experts were also
instructed to limit the measure’s length to ensure that it could be
completed in a timely manner. To guide the number of items to
be selected, the independent reviewers were asked to select up
to six items reflective of the denial of human uniqueness and
human nature. The decision to limit the item selection in this
way was on the basis of Classical Test Theory and latent variable
modeling approaches to measurement development (e.g., Harvey
et al., 1985;Hinkin, 1995, 1998;Marsh et al., 2010;Brown, 2015).
The two independent reviewers demonstrated high agreement
(Cohen’s Kappa = 91.2%) across the selection of 12 items from
the original item pool. These 12 items were categorized by
both independent raters to reflect either the denial of human
uniqueness (six items) or the denial of human nature (six items).
Of the final 12 items selected by the expert judges, three were
items that were retained from the Bastian and Haslam (2011)
dehumanization measure, while nine reflected original items
(see Appendix A). As shown in Appendix A, each item is
worded in two forms to reflect assessment of both perpetrator
and target perspectives. Thus, participants are required to rate
the same 12 items twice – once to assess their tendency to
perpetrate dehumanization, and once to assess their tendency
to be the target of dehumanization. Each item is rated on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). Higher scores reflect greater dehumanization
perpetration or targeting.
Participants were administered the DIRRS by way of an
anonymous online survey that also included a demographics
questionnaire that entailed sex, age, ethnicity, relationship
length, and relationship status. The online survey took
approximately 10 min.
Data Analysis
The construct validity of the DIRRS was assessed using
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with Maximum Likelihood
Estimation (Muthèn and Kaplan, 1985). Assessment of model
fit was based on the guidelines proposed by Hu and Bentler
(1999). Therefore, in addition to evaluating the chi-square value
(χ2ML), a model with a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥0.95, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) ≤0.05, and Standardized Root Mean
Residual (SRMR) = 0.06 was indicative of good fit. Given that the
secondary aim of this research was to determine the dimensional
composition of interpersonal dehumanization, CFA was used
to model two alternative factor structures – Model 1 evaluated
the unidimensional conceptualization of dehumanization, while
Model 2 evaluated the two-dimensional conceptualization.
Because the newly developed measure included items that
assessed dehumanization from both the perpetrator and target
perspectives, separate CFAs were conducted for each set of items.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 5
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
FIGURE 1 | Alternative conceptualizations of dehumanization. Standardized factor loadings and covariances for perpetration items are presented in parentheses.
In order to determine the best fitting structure between the two
alternative models (i.e., unidimensional and two-dimensional
structures) chi-square difference (1χ2) tests of model fit were
conducted. To safeguard against Type II error when identifying
significant differences between models, a practical difference test
(i.e., a TLI difference of 0.01) was employed.
Results and Discussion
The unidimensional structure of dehumanization (see Figure 1,
Model 1) demonstrated poor fit for both perpetration and target
versions of the DIRRS (see Table 1). The two-dimensional
structure (see Figure 1, Model 2) also demonstrated poor fit
for the items constituting the perpetration of dehumanization
and being the target of dehumanization (see Table 1). Factor
loadings for all items (perpetration and target) across the
two alternative models (i.e., Models 1 and 2) varied in
magnitude from λ= 0.45 to λ= 0.78 (see Figure 1) and
were all significant at p<0.001. As presented in Table 1,
comparison of the fit of perpetration and target items across
Models 1 and 2 by way of chi-square differences tests
revealed that the two-dimensional model was of significantly
better fit to data for both sets of items compared to the
unidimensional model.
However, despite the significantly better fit of the two-
dimensional model, the overall poor fit of this factor structure
indicates model misspecification (e.g., Brown, 2015). In
particular, a poor fitting factor structure can often signal that
item variance needs to be accounted for through the modeling of
additional factors (e.g., Brown, 2015;Kline, 2015). To this end,
we endeavored to derive a post hoc multifactorial structure that
would: (1) better account for item variance, and (2) advance on
prior theory regarding the dimensionality of dehumanization.
Post hoc re-examination of the items for human uniqueness
and human nature suggested that each subscale of the DIRRS
may in fact contain subthemes suggestive of a four factor solution
for the perpetrator and target items respectively. While a four
factor conceptualization of dehumanization is indeed novel, a
closer inspection of the literature indicates an implicit set of
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 6
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
TABLE 1 | Study 1 Chi-square difference tests for perpetration and target versions of the DIRRS.
Model χ2df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Comparison χ21df 1
Perpetration
Model 1 (single factor) 1702.778 54 0.688 0.618 0.156 0.095 Model 1 and Model 3 1436.471∗∗ ∗ 6
Model 2 (2 correlated factors) 1281.402 53 0.767 0.710 0.136 0.091 Model 2 and Model 3 1015.095∗∗ ∗ 5
Model 3 (4 correlated factors) 266.307 48 0.959 0.943 0.060 0.044 – – –
Model 4 (4 first-order factors, 2 second-order factors) 289.491 49 0.954 0.939 0.063 0.049 Model 4 and Model 3 23.341∗ ∗ ∗ 1
Model 5 (4 first-order factors, 1 second-order factor) 299.648 50 0.953 0.938 0.063 0.048 Model 5 and Model 3 33.341∗ ∗ ∗ 2
Target
Model 1 (single factor) 1788.304 54 0.741 0.683 0.160 0.086 Model 1 and Model 3 1438.818∗ ∗ ∗ 6
Model 2 (2 correlated factors) 1509.947 53 0.782 0.729 0.148 0.085 Model 2 and Model 3 1160.461∗ ∗ ∗ 5
Model 3 (4 correlated factors) 349.486 48 0.955 0.938 0.070 0.044 – – –
Model 4 (4 first-order factors, 2 second-order factors) 349.524 49 0.955 0.940 0.070 0.044 Model 4 and Model 3 0.038 1
Model 5 (4 first-order factors, 1 second-order factor) 349.611 50 0.955 0.941 0.069 0.044 Model 5 and Model 3 0.125 2
χ2, Chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized
root mean residual. ∗∗ ∗ p<0.001.
facets pertaining to human uniqueness and human nature that
are related, but somewhat distinct. Specifically, these facets can
be found within the vast majority of contemporary definitions of
human nature and human uniqueness (e.g., Haslam, 2006, 2015;
Bastian and Haslam, 2011;Haslam et al., 2013). For example,
the denial of human uniqueness is described as perceiving the
target as coarse and backward (i.e., lacking social refinement),
or irrational, childlike and immature (i.e., lacking maturity and
competence). The denial of human nature is often described as
seeing the target as an object or machine (i.e., a means to an end)
or as cold, inert, and lacking emotion (i.e., heartless).
Therefore, the denial of human uniqueness may reflect
two subfactors with items (3 per factor) constituting a lack
of immaturity and social refinement. The ‘immature’ factor
represents the treatment of an individual as if they are a child
and can’t manage on one’s own, whereas the ‘unrefined’ factor
suggests that an individual is an embarrassment to one’s partner,
and that one’s partner is ashamed of an individual’s lack of social
status. Likewise, the denial of human nature also reflects two
subfactors (three items per factor), namely, that the partner is
exploitable and emotionless. The ‘exploitable’ factor represents
being treated as a means to an end in which one’s worth is based
on what they can offer another (i.e., they are a machine or robot-
like), whereas the ‘emotionless’ factor suggests that one is heartless
and unresponsive (i.e., lacking emotion).
To determine the fit of this multifactorial structure, a four
factor first-order structure with oblique rotation was evaluated
(see Figure 2, Model 3). However, given that Model 3 reflected
a multifactorial structure that was derived on the basis of items
thought to capture the unidimensional and two-dimensional
conceptualizations of dehumanization, two additional higher-
order models were tested. Specifically, Model 4 (see Figure 2)
represents a two factor higher-order model with four first-order
factors. The two higher-order factors represent the dual model of
dehumanization. Model 5 (see Figure 2) represents a single factor
higher-order model with four first-order factors. The higher-
order factor represents the unidimensional conceptualization of
interpersonal dehumanization. That is, both higher-order models
assume that the existing conceptualizations of dehumanization
reported in the literature may reflect higher-order or global
structures that are underpinned by more nuanced and specific
lower-order facets. As in the case of Models 1 and 2, Models 3 to
5 were evaluated for model fit and comparison across models was
conducted using chi-square difference tests.
The four factor first-order structure of dehumanization
(Figure 2, Model 3) resulted in very good fit for both perpetration
and target items (see Table 1). The two-dimensional higher
order structure (Figure 2, Model 4) demonstrated good to very
good fit for both perpetration and target items (see Table 1).
The unidimensional higher-order structure (Figure 2, Model 5)
also resulted in good to very good fit for both perpetration and
target items (see Table 1). Across Models 3 to 5, the scale items
demonstrated moderate to high loadings onto their respective
factors (λ= 0.58–0.89, see Figure 2) and all loadings were
significant (p<0.001).
Chi-square difference tests comparing the fit between Models
3 through 5 with Model 2 (the best fitting model out of Models
1 and 2) were conducted across perpetration and target items. In
relation to items assessing perpetration, Model 3 (i.e., the four
factor first-order solution) demonstrated significantly better fit
when compared to all other models (see Table 1). In relation
to items assessing being the target of dehumanization, Models 3
through 5 were of significantly better fit compared with Model
2, however, the differences between Models 3, 4, and 5 (1χ2and
1TLI) were not significant. That is, Models 3 to 5 were equivalent
in terms of fit (see Table 1).
In summary, model comparisons revealed that the four factor
first-order solution (Model 3) was the best fit to the data in
relation to the perpetration items. Model 3 comprised factors
that relate to denials of human uniqueness (i.e., immature and
unrefined) and human nature (i.e., exploitable and emotionless).
The four factor first-order model possesses good internal
consistency across both perpetration (immature α= 0.76;
unrefined α= 0.75; exploitable α= 0.71; emotionless α= 0.83)
and target (immature α= 0.76; unrefined α= 0.78; exploitable
α= 0.76; emotionless α= 0.85) items.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 7
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
FIGURE 2 | New conceptualizations of interpersonal dehumanization. Standardized factor loadings and covariances for perpetration items are presented in
parentheses.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 8
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
While the superior fit of Model 3 was apparent across all
comparisons based on the perpetration items of the DIRRS, the
findings were not as consistent for the target items. Specifically,
Model 3 demonstrated significantly better fit than Models 1 and
2, however, was of equivalent fit when compared to Models
4 and 5 (i.e., the two factor and single factor higher-order
models). While further confirmation of this new factor structure
is required, what is apparent is that the dimensionality of
the DIRRS (and interpersonal dehumanization more generally)
may be more nuanced than first thought. That is, the two
most common conceptualizations of dehumanization proposed
within the literature—the unidimensional structure (as reported
by Bastian et al., 2012a,b) and the two-dimensional structure
(reflecting Haslam (2006) dual model of dehumanization)—may
not best reflect the nature of interpersonal dehumanization,
especially within romantic relationships.
STUDY 2
The findings for the construct validation of the DIRRS in Study
1 resulted in a four factor first-order structure (i.e., Figure 2,
Model 3) that had not been theorized a priori. Therefore, the
central aim of Study 2 was to cross-validate this structure on an
independent sample. In doing so, we again compared the fit of
the four factor first-order structure to all other dehumanization
models tested as part of Study 1 [i.e., Models 1, 2 (Figure 1), 4,
and 5 (Figure 2)]. We also extend our psychometric evaluation of
the DIRRS to a criterion validity analysis for both versions (target
and perpetration) of the measure.
Given that dehumanization reflects people’s behavioral
tendencies to treat another as less than human, it is
highly probable that being the perpetrator and/or target of
dehumanization is likely to be associated with a constellation
of negative relationship behaviors and outcomes. For instance,
dehumanization perpetration is characterized by treating
someone as incompetent, stupid or as a means to end (Haslam,
2006), and is thus likely to be associated with engaging in other
toxic and aversive relationship behaviors. These can include
limiting a person’s agency and autonomy through controlling
and intrusive behavior often manifested as caregiving or social
support (e.g., Kunce and Shaver, 1994;Bolger and Amarel, 2007;
Pizzirani and Karantzas, 2019). Similarly, targets of romantic
relationship dehumanization are likely to report being treated
insensitively, suffering ridicule, and hostility. Therefore, targets
may also engage in reactive or defensive behaviors in response
their partner’s dehumanization, such as engaging in destructive
communication patterns (e.g., stonewalling or withdrawing).
Conversely, being either the perpetrator or target of
dehumanization should attenuate people’s engagement in positive
and constructive relationship behaviors while also lessening
their positive appraisals of their partner and the relationship
overall. For example, based on the perpetrator’s treatment of
their romantic partner as less than human, we would expect the
perpetrator to possess less positive regard for their partner as well
as reductions in the perceived quality of their relationship. This
is because the target is unlikely to be evaluated by the perpetrator
as living up to what is expected of a partner (Fletcher et al., 1999).
On the other hand, the target of dehumanization is also likely
to view their partner and the relationship in a less positive light
given that the behaviors that constitute dehumanization are likely
to undermine the positive functions of romantic relationships
in which the perpetrator may also be viewed as falling well
short of the target’s ideas of how they should be treated within
their romantic relationship (Fletcher et al., 1999;Simpson et al.,
2001). Therefore, the second aim of Study 2 was to determine
the concurrent validity of the DIRRS using a series of measures
pertaining to relationship functioning as well as partner and
relationship appraisals.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 847 participants (37.9% men, 61.4%
women, 0.7% gender not specified) recruited online via the same
social networking platforms used in Study 1. Participants were
from the United States (60%), Canada (12%), Australia (19%),
and the United Kingdom (9%). Participants ranged in age from
18 to 59 years (M= 25.55, SD = 6.43) and were all in a current
romantic relationship (M= 3.55 years, SD = 4.27). Relationship
status consisted of participants who were steadily dating (51%),
cohabiting (25%), engaged (8%), and married (16%).
Materials and Procedure
This study received ethics approval from the Deakin University’s
Human Ethics Committee. Participants completed an
anonymous online survey which took approximately 20 min.
The survey consisted of a series of demographic questions
and self-report measures. These questions and measures
are outlined below.
Demographics
Included general questions concerning the participant’s age,
gender, country of residence, and relationship status and length.
Dehumanziation
Participants completed both the perpetration and target versions
of DIIRS developed in Study 1 (see section “Study 1” for details).
Negative social exchanges
Negative relationship behaviors experienced within romantic
relationships were assessed using the Test of Negative Social
Exchanges (TENSE; Ruehlman and Karoly, 1991). The TENSE
consists of 24 items that are rated on a nine-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (frequently) where participants are
asked to rate the frequency with which their relationship partner
demonstrated negative behaviors. The TENSE is comprised of
four subscales (six items per dimension): Hostility, Insensitivity,
Interference, and Ridicule (αs>0.79).
Caregiving
To assess the tendencies by which individuals render care to
their romantic partner, participants completed the Caregiving
Questionnaire (Kunce and Shaver, 1994). The Caregiving
Questionnaire is a 32-item measure designed to assess four
caregiving dimensions (eight items per dimension): proximity vs.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 9
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
distance, sensitivity vs. insensitivity, cooperation vs. control, and
compulsive caregiving. Items are rated on a six-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (totally disagree)to6(totally agree;αs>0.79).
Relationship quality
Participants’ appraisal of their current romantic relationship was
assessed using the Perceived Relationship Quality Components
short form (PRQC-SF; Fletcher et al., 2000). The PRQC-SF
consists of six items that are rated on a seven-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all)to7(extremely;α= 0.83).
Communication patterns
Constructive and destructive communication patterns were
assessed using the Communication Patterns Questionnaire short
form (CPQ-SF; Furtis et al., 2010). The measure consists of 11
items comprising two subscales: demand/withdrawal (destructive
communication), and positive communication (constructive
communication). Items are rated on a nine-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (very unlikely)to9(very likely;αs>0.72).
Positive regard
Positive appraisal of a romantic partner was assessed using a
modified version of the Revised Barrett-Lennard Relationship
Inventory (RBLR; Cramer, 1986). The RBLR consists of 16-items
that are rated on a six-point Likert scale from 1 (very untrue) to 6
(very true;α= 0.90).
Results and Discussion
Results are reported in two sections. In the first section, we
report on the cross-validation of the construct validity of
the two versions of the DIIRS using CFA. Specifically, we
compared the structure of the best-fitting model identified in
Study 1 [the four factor first-order model of dehumanization,
Model 3 (Figure 2)] to all other factor structures illustrated
across Models 1 to 5 (see Figures 1,2). After estimating
model fit, we conducted a series of model difference tests in
which Model 3 was tested against all other models. In the
second section, we report on the analyses pertaining to the
criterion-related validity of the measure by way of correlational
analyses in which the dimensions of both versions of the
DIIRS were examined for their associations with the criterion-
related variables.
Construct Validity
The evaluation of the four factor first-order structure of
dehumanization (Model 3) demonstrated excellent fit to the data
for both the perpetration version of the DIRRS and target version
of the DIRRS (see Table 2). Consistent with the findings from
Study 1, chi-square difference tests and 1TLI revealed that the
four factor first-order structure was significantly better in fit
when compared to all other models [1χ2and 1TLI pertain to
Model 3 compared against Models 1, 2, 4, and 5 respectively (see
Figures 1,2)]. This was the case across both the perpetration and
target versions of the DIRRS (see Table 2).
The findings regarding construct validity for Study 2, replicate
the findings of Study 1, such that the four factor first-order
solution was the best fit to the data. Importantly, in Study 2,
these findings were consistent for models testing items from both
perpetrator and target perspectives. These findings again suggest
that when it comes to interpersonal dehumanization—such as
within romantic relationships—dehumanization may be more
nuanced than first thought. This is not to say that the dual model
(Haslam, 2006) or unitary conceptualizations of dehumanization
are not relevant to the study of dehumanization within romantic
relationships. Rather, the one and two factor higher-order models
reflect broad dimensions that are best distilled into more fine-
grained facets within the context of romantic relationships.
Importantly, these related but distinct facets capture a number of
primary themes that are often implicitly discussed in reference to
human uniqueness and human nature, but not readily identified
as part of the one or two factor approaches.
With reference to the four factor first-order structure of the
DIRRS, while the subfactors of immature and unrefined both
reflect denials of human uniqueness, they are also conceptually
distinct. For example, an individual may perceive their partner
to be highly competent and mature, but nonetheless lack a
degree of social refinement. Likewise, although the exploitable
and emotionless subfactors reflect denials of human nature,
treating someone with conditional regard (i.e., as if their value
lies only in what they can offer their partner) is not synonymous
with treating someone as if they are heartless or unable to
experience or express interpersonal warmth (i.e., emotionless).
Thus, an individual can possess interpersonal warmth and
emotionality while at the same time be treated as if they are
only valuable for what they can offer. In contrast, the emotionless
subfactor reflects a constant state of emotional inertia (i.e., being
heartless and cold).
Criterion Validity
Based on the results of the construct validity analyses, we
evaluated the criterion-related validity of the four factor first-
order structure of the perpetrator and target versions of the
DIRRS. Specifically, the associations between the four factors of
immature, unrefined, exploitable, and emotionless, and variables
representing positive and negative relationship interactions as
well as relationship and partner evaluations were tested.
The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between
the four factors of the DIRRS (for both perpetration and target
versions) and the criterion-related validity variables are listed
in Tables 3,4. In line with predictions, for both versions
of the DIRRS, the four subscales were found to positively
correlate with the use of demand-withdrawal communication
(i.e., destructive conflict management) and negatively with
positive communication (i.e., constructive conflict management).
Similarly, across both versions of the measure, all four subscales
were negatively associated with reports of relationship quality and
regard for one’s partner (see Tables 3,4). Additionally, moderate
associations were found between all subscales of the target version
of the DIRRS and scores on negative relationship experiences
as indexed by the TENSE subscales of hostility, insensitivity,
interference, and ridicule (see Table 3). Finally, and in line with
our predictions, all subscales of the perpetration version of the
DIRRS were positively associated with providing care that is
compulsive and intrusive, and negatively associated with care that
is sensitive, proximal, and cooperative (see Table 4).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 10
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
TABLE 2 | Study 2 Chi-square difference tests for perpetration and target versions of the DIRRS.
Model χ2df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Comparison χ21df 1
Perpetration
Model 1 (single factor) 1096.163 54 0.634 0.553 0.151 0.102 Model 1 and Model 3 867.622∗ ∗ ∗ 6
Model 2 (2 correlated factors) 739.579 53 0.759 0.700 0.124 0.102 Model 2 and Model 3 511.038∗ ∗ ∗ 5
Model 3 (4 correlated factors) 228.541 48 0.937 0.913 0.067 0.054 – – –
Model 4 (4 first-order factors, 2 second-order factors) 232.754 49 0.936 0.923 0.067 0.056 Model 4 and Model 3 4.213∗1
Model 5 (4 first-order factors, 1 second-order factor) 243.693 50 0.932 0.910 0.068 0.056 Model 5 and Model 3 15.152∗ ∗ 2
Target
Model 1 (single factor) 1278.656 54 0.665 0.590 0.164 0.102 Model 1 and Model 3 954.969∗ ∗ ∗ 6
Model 2 (2 correlated factors) 1015.654 53 0.736 0.672 0.147 0.085 Model 2 and Model 3 691.967∗ ∗ ∗ 5
Model 3 (4 correlated factors) 323.687 48 0.925 0.900 0.080 0.053 – – –
Model 4 (4 first-order factors, 2 second-order factors) 331.658 49 0.923 0.896 0.083 0.057 Model 4 and Model 3 0.038∗∗ 1
Model 5 (4 first-order factors, 1 second-order factor) 333.704 50 0.922 0.897 0.082 0.055 Model 5 and Model 3 0.125∗∗ 2
χ2, Chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized
root mean residual. ∗p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01, ∗ ∗ ∗ p<0.001.
TABLE 3 | Study 2 descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the target version of the DIRRS and other study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(1) Immature –
(2) Unrefined 0.43∗∗ –
(3) Exploitable 0.40∗∗ 0.57∗∗ –
(4) Emotionless 0.36∗∗ 0.38∗∗ 0.45∗∗ –
(5) Hostility 0.49∗∗ 0.37∗∗ 0.44∗∗ 0.42∗∗ –
(6) Insensitivity 0.44∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.65∗∗ 0.38∗∗ 0.69∗∗ –
(7) Interference 0.49∗∗ 0.42∗∗ 0.59∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.69∗∗ 0.66∗∗ –
(8) Ridicule 0.49∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.62∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.68∗∗ 0.82∗∗ 0.64∗∗ –
(9) Relationship quality −0.29∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.48∗∗ −0.34∗∗ −0.32∗∗ −0.44∗∗ −0.39∗∗ −0.46∗∗ –
(10) Demand-withdrawal 0.38∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.56∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.48∗∗ −0.32∗∗ –
(11) Positive communication −0.28∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.43∗∗ −0.28∗∗ −0.24∗∗ −0.41∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.41∗∗ 0.51∗∗ −0.45∗∗ –
(12) Positive regard −0.35∗∗ −0.29∗∗ −0.50∗∗ −0.46∗∗ −0.41∗∗ −0.44∗∗ −0.51∗∗ −0.45∗∗ 0.72∗∗ −0.42∗∗ 0.47∗∗ –
Mean Standard deviation N847 2.12 1.52 1.67 1.82 2.34 2.61 2.13 2.21 5.80 18.64 19.65 5.40
1.03 0.77 0.88 2.34 1.46 1.65 1.21 1.30 0.98 8.74 5.43 0.63
∗∗ p<0.01.
TABLE 4 | Study 2 descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the perpetration version of the DIRRS and other study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(1) Immature –
(2) Unrefined 0.48∗∗ –
(3) Exploitable 0.38∗∗ 0.45∗∗ –
(4) Emotionless 0.27∗∗ 0.27∗∗ 0.33∗∗ –
(5) Proximal caregiving −0.27∗∗ −0.34∗∗ −0.37∗∗ −0.12∗∗ –
(6) Sensitive caregiving −0.19∗∗ −0.25∗∗ −0.33∗∗ −0.22∗∗ 0.42∗∗ –
(7) Cooperative caregiving −0.51∗∗ −0.36∗∗ −0.34∗∗ −0.20∗∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.37∗∗ –
(8) Compulsive caregiving 0.28∗∗ 0.17∗0.10∗∗ 0.19∗∗ 0.03 −0.15∗∗ −0.43∗∗ –
(9) Relationship quality −0.33∗∗ 0.35∗∗ −0.40∗∗ −0.35∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.36∗∗ −0.25∗∗ 0.05 –
(10) Positive regard −0.48∗∗ −0.53∗∗ −0.51∗∗ −0.35∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.38∗∗ −0.42∗∗ 0.10∗∗ 0.72∗∗ –
(11) Demand-withdrawal 0.43∗∗ 0.31∗∗ 0.34∗∗ 0.36∗∗ −0.27∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.44∗∗ −0.28∗∗ −0.32∗∗ −0.42∗∗ –
(12) Positive communication −0.26∗∗ −0.24∗−0.31∗∗ −0.31∗∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.37∗∗ 0.28∗∗ 0.15∗0.51∗∗ 0.47∗∗ −0.45∗∗ –
Mean Standard deviation N847 2.25 1.53 1.45 1.70 5.31 4.46 4.37 3.08 5.80 5.40 18.64 19.65
1.11 0.75 0.65 0.95 0.72 0.94 0.90 0.96 0.98 0.63 8.74 5.43
∗p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 11
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
In summary, being the target or perpetrator of
dehumanization has implications for the way romantic partners
treat one another and their appraisals of their partner and
relationship. A consistent pattern of negative associations
with positive relationship behaviors, and positive associations
with negative relationship behaviors was found between all
dehumanization subscales (for both target and perpetration
versions of the DIRRS). In short, both versions of the DIRRS
and their respective factors were associated with criterion-related
variables in ways that were in line with our predictions.
STUDY 3
Study 3 had two aims. First, to cross-validate the associations
between dehumanization and the criterion-validity variables
reported in Study 2. Second, to investigate the associations
between dehumanization and the very extreme end of the
negative relationship behavior spectrum—overt emotional
and physical abuse.
The application of dehumanization to the study of more
severe romantic relationship behavior stems from the long-
held view that perpetrators of dehumanization are less likely to
experience empathic distress or guilt for an abhorrent or violent
act and are less likely to condemn oneself for such an act (e.g.,
Kelman, 1976;Bandura, 1999;Haslam and Loughnan, 2014;
Kteily and Bruneau, 2017). Because the perpetrator perceives
the target of dehumanization to be someone who is less than
human (and thus not worthy of moral concern or respectful
treatment; Haslam, 2015) it stands to reason that within romantic
relationships, a partner that dehumanizes their significant other
may also engage in emotional abuse, domestic violence, and other
abusive maltreatments.
Furthermore, based on previous findings in which
dehumanization has been shown to have a negative impact
on self-perception (e.g., feelings of shame and guilt; Bastian
and Haslam, 2011), we also examined the association between
dehumanization and positive appraisals of the self (i.e., feeling
proud, confident, and strong).
Consistent with our predictions in Study 2, we expected
that being the target and perpetrator of dehumanization
would be negatively associated with positive relationship
behaviors, positively associated with negative relationship
behaviors (including emotional and physical abuse), and
negatively associated with relationship quality. It was also
predicted that being the target of dehumanization would be
negatively associated with positive self-appraisals.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 328 participants (27% men, 72% women,
1% gender not specified) recruited online (using the same social
networking sites as Studies 1 and 2) from the United States
(51%), Canada (5%), Australia (42%), and New Zealand (2%).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 60 years (M= 23.40,
SD = 6.43) and were all currently in a romantic relationship
(M= 2.40 years, SD = 4.27). Relationship status consisted of
participants who were steadily dating (51%), cohabiting (25%),
engaged (8%), and married (16%).
Materials and Procedure
This study received ethics approval from the Deakin University’s
Human Ethics Committee. As with Studies 1 and 2, participants
completed an anonymous online survey. Participation took
approximately 20 min. The survey contained many of the
same assessments used in Study 2 [i.e., the same demographic
questions, the DIRRS to assess being the target and perpetrator
of dehumanization, the TENSE (Ruehlman and Karoly, 1991)
to assess negative interactions, the CPQ-SF (Furtis et al., 2010)
to assess communication patterns, and the PRQC-SF (Fletcher
et al., 2000)] to measure relationship quality. In addition to
these measures, the survey included measures of emotional and
physical abuse and self-appraisals. These are described below.
Emotional abuse
Participants completed the restrictive engulfment (seven-items)
and dominance/intimidation (seven-items) subscales of the
Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (Murphy and
Hoover, 1999) in order to provide an assessment of both their
experience and perpetration of emotional abuse. Participants are
required to rate emotional abuse items in terms of the number
of times they and their partner enacted the abuse in the past 6-
months [i.e., 0 (never in the past 6 months)to6(>20 times)].
Items were summed to create a total emotional abuse experience
score (α= 0.80) and a total emotional abuse perpetration score
(α= 0.75) for each participant.
Physical abuse
Participants also completed the overt physical violence (seven-
items) and restrictive violence (three-items) subscales of the
Abuse Within Intimate Relationships Scale (AIRS; Borjesson
et al., 2003). Participants were asked to indicate how often
physical abuse behaviors occur in their current romantic
relationship on a seven-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never)
to 7 (always). Items were asked twice, once to assess the
experience of physical abuse (α= 0.80), and again to assess the
perpetration of physical abuse (α= 0.90).
Self-appraisal
Participants were required to rate the extent to which they
generally feel strong, proud, and confident. Each of these items is
rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly, or not at
all)to5(extremely). Scores from these items were then averaged
to create a composite score of positive self-appraisal (α= 0.73).
Results and Discussion
The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between
the four factors of the DIRRS (for both perpetration and
target versions) and the criterion-related validity variables
are presented in Tables 5,6. As predicted (and consistent
with Study 2 results), across both versions of the DIRRS, the
four subscales were found to positively correlate with the use
of demand-withdrawal communication and negatively with
positive communication. Similarly, across both versions of the
measure, all four subscales were negatively associated with
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 12
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
reports of relationship quality (see Tables 5,6). Additionally,
for the target version of the DIRRS, moderate associations
were again found (see section “Study 2”) between the
dehumanization subscales and reports of partner hostility,
insensitivity, interference, and ridicule (as indexed by the TENSE
subscales; see Table 5).
In line with further predictions, all dehumanization subscales
of the DIRRS were moderately positively correlated with the
experience of emotional abuse (see Tables 5,6). In addition,
scores on all but one DIRRS subscale [i.e., unrefined (target
version)] were significantly positively correlated with the
experience of physical abuse. Similarly, scores on all but the
unrefined subscale of the target version of the DIRRS were found
to correlate negatively with positive self-appraisals. While the
unrefined subscale for the target version of the DIRRS failed to
reach significance for both the physical abuse and self-appraisal
associations, the direction of these correlations was consistent
with the other dehumanization factors.
In summary, the results of Study 3 provide support for
the criterion validity findings from Study 2 for both the
target and perpetration versions of the DIRRS. The reported
associations between the target dehumanization subscales and
self-appraisals are also consistent with previous research in
which dehumanization has been shown to have a negative
association with self-perception (e.g., Bastian and Haslam, 2011).
In particular, being denied humanness by one’s romantic partner
appears to have implications for how individuals perceive
themselves in terms of variables related to ego and self-efficacy
(i.e., feeling proud, confident, and strong). Furthermore, the
findings of the current study suggest that dehumanization
is associated with extreme and serious negative relationship
behaviors, namely emotional and physical abuse. Findings
from Study 3, therefore, further support the link between
dehumanization and the unacceptable treatment of others. This
suggests that within romantic relationships denying humanness
may give people a license to aggress or abuse their partner.
TABLE 5 | Study 3 descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the perpetration version of the DIRRS and other study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(1) Immature –
(2) Unrefined 0.46∗∗ –
(3) Exploitable 0.37∗∗ 0.37∗∗ –
(4) Emotionless 0.31∗∗ 0.15∗0.42∗∗ –
(5) Relationship quality −0.35∗∗ −0.32∗∗ −0.34∗−0.33∗∗ –
(6) Emotional abuse perpetration 0.32∗∗ 0.22∗∗ 0.24∗∗ 0.38∗∗ −0.26∗∗ –
(7) Physical abuse perpetration 0.30∗∗ 0.12∗0.30∗∗ 0.29∗∗ −0.23∗∗ 0.18∗∗ –
(8) Demand-withdrawal 0.47∗∗ 0.32∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.50∗∗ −0.27∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.24∗∗ –
(9) Positive communication −0.33∗∗ −0.13∗−0.26∗∗ −0.36∗∗ 0.35∗∗ −0.24∗∗ −0.21∗∗ −0.46∗∗ –
Mean Standard deviation N328 2.01 1.31 1.34 1.68 6.09 4.57 1.10 21.16 6.09
1.03 0.61 0.58 1.01 0.80 5.78 0.31 6.09 0.80
∗p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01.
TABLE 6 | Study 3 descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the target version of the DIRRS and other study variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(1) Immature –
(2) Unrefined 0.48∗∗ –
(3) Exploitable 0.48∗∗ 0.47∗∗ –
(4) Emotionless 0.47∗∗ 0.29∗∗ 0.43∗∗ –
(5) Hostility 0.56∗∗ 0.44∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.51∗∗ –
(6) Insensitivity 0.41∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.66∗∗ 0.34∗∗ 0.59∗∗ –
(7) Interference 0.27∗∗ 0.27∗∗ 0.32∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 0.38∗∗ –
(8) Ridicule 0.24∗∗ 0.28∗∗ 0.20∗∗ 0.18∗∗ 0.26∗∗ 0.15∗∗ 0.23∗∗ –
(9) Relationship quality −0.26∗∗ −0.29∗∗ −0.42∗∗ −0.44∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.45∗∗ −0.42∗∗ −0.11 –
(10) Demand-withdrawal 0.44∗∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.49∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 0.49∗∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.25∗∗ −0.27∗∗ –
(11) Positive communication −0.34∗∗ −0.31∗∗ −0.37∗∗ −0.24∗∗ −0.36∗∗ −0.39∗∗ −0.21∗∗ −0.11 0.35∗∗ −0.46∗∗ –
(12) Emotional abuse target 0.40∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.60∗∗ 0.40∗∗ 0.48∗∗ 0.30∗∗ −0.34∗∗ 0.46∗∗ −0.30∗∗ –
(13) Physical abuse target 0.12∗0.06 0.19∗∗ 0.17∗∗ 0.15∗∗ 0.20∗∗ 0.12∗0.15∗∗ −0.16∗∗ 0.25∗∗ −0.08 0.21∗∗ –
(14) Self-appraisal −0.14∗−0.09 −0.15∗−0.21∗−0.07 −0.14∗−0.10 −0.03 0.23∗−0.14∗0.19∗∗ −0.13∗0.02 –
Mean Standard deviation N328 2.04 1.41 1.51 1.66 2.00 1.72 1.50 1.39 18.46 21.16 6.09 4.15 1.10 3.32
1.19 0.81 0.85 1.07 0.66 0.75 0.63 0.59 9.00 6.09 0.80 6.30 0.23 0.89
∗p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 13
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Despite increasing interest in the study of interpersonal
dehumanization, there remains little research into this
phenomenon within the context of romantic relationships.
A major barrier in linking dehumanization to the study of
romantic relationships is that no measure exists to assess
dehumanization within this interpersonal context. Furthermore,
ambiguity exists regarding the factor structure of interpersonal
dehumanization. With these limitations in mind, the current
paper reports on the development and psychometric evaluation
of the Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale
(DIRRS). The DIRRS significantly extends on past measures
of dehumanization by providing a multifaceted assessment of
dehumanization within romantic relationships that accounts for
both perpetrator and target perspectives.
The current paper advances on current conceptualizations
of dehumanization by proposing that dehumanization within
romantic relationships (and possibly, interpersonal relationships
more generally) consists of four related but distinct facets
(each possessing good internal reliability). This novel factor
structure decomposes the denial of human uniqueness and
human nature into two factors respectively—immature and
unrefined (denials of human uniqueness), and exploitable and
emotionless (denials of human nature). Not only do these facets
represent key features of the denial of humanness described in the
literature (e.g., Haslam, 2006, 2015;Bastian and Haslam, 2011;
Haslam et al., 2013), but the implication is that not all denials
of human uniqueness should be considered as conceptually
equivalent; likewise, for denials of human nature. That is,
to treat a partner as immature or incompetent is not the
same as treating them as lacking social refinement. Similarly,
treating someone with conditional regard is not analogous to
engaging in dissociation. The factor structure constituting these
facets was replicated across Studies 1 and 2, with the four
factor first-order model consistently found to be of better fit
compared to all other factor structures. Moreover, the same
four factor model equally applied to the perpetrator and target
versions of the DIRRS.
Across Studies 2 and 3, the dehumanization facets in both
versions of the DIRRS were also associated with criterion-
related variables in ways that were in line with predictions.
All four facets were positively associated with destructive
communication patterns, negative partner behaviors such
as hostility, insensitivity, interference (including care that
was intrusive), and ridicule. In contrast the facets were
negatively associated with constructive communication
patterns, the provision of sensitive-proximal care, relationship
quality, regard for one’s partner and positive self-appraisals
(only measured in Study 3). These findings provide the
first evidence that romantic relationship dehumanization
attenuates positive relationship appraisals and functioning
but amplifies negative appraisals of oneself and partner,
exacerbating negative relationship processes. Furthermore,
the associations found between the DIRRS and emotional
and physical abuse (Study 3) highlight that dehumanization
is indeed associated with relationship behaviors that extend
into the realm of intimate partner violence and aggression.
In this way, the findings of Study 3 suggest that just as
dehumanization may be an explanatory mechanism for
intergroup prejudice, discrimination and aggression (e.g.,
Bandura, 1999;Haslam, 2015;Kteily et al., 2015;Kteily and
Bruneau, 2017), so too, may dehumanization act as an impelling
factor in the manifestation of interpersonal abuse. Therefore,
future research should investigate dehumanization as a possible
explanatory mechanism for the manifestation of abuse within
romantic relationships.
Although the four factor first-order model of dehumanization
(see Figure 2, Model 3) was the best fitting model (see
Tables 1,2), we note that both the one and two factor
higher-order models (see Figure 2, Models 4 and 5) also
produced good to very good fit. This suggests that the four
first-order factors may indeed represent specific substrates
of human uniqueness, human nature, or dehumanization
overall. Thus, researchers may also be interested in
using the DIRRS to compute higher-order factors3if
they wish to aggregate up to more global assessments
of interpersonal dehumanization. It is important to note,
however, that omitting the four factors from the modeling of
dehumanization by way of the DIRRS reduces fit significantly—
which speaks to the substantive and empirical need to
model these dehumanization facets within the context of
romantic relationships.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although we find highly consistent results across the three studies
in terms of the construct and criterion-related validity of the
DIRRS, each sample was by-and-large a community, non-clinical
sample that on average reported low levels of dehumanization.
Researchers, therefore, should attempt to confirm our findings
using a more diverse sample including distressed or high-
conflict couples. An understanding of how couples characterized
by high stress and negativity engage in dehumanization may
provide important insights into understanding key contextual
factors affecting couples and families. These factors may include
financial stress, a history of troublesome family relationships, and
other contextual variables indicative of harsh or unpredictable
environments. In addition, although the four dehumanization
factors are identified statistically, and on strong theoretical
grounds, the criterion validation performed on the DIRRS does
not demonstrate whether the various factors predict different
behaviors within relationships (i.e., we did not differentiate
between each factor’s predictive validity). Furthermore, future
research should implement the DIRRS within dyadic contexts, in
order to account for the influence that both members of a couple
have on their own and their partner’s experience of being the
perpetrator and target of dehumanization.
In addition, although we developed and validated the DIRRS
using data from individuals currently in romantic relationships,
3In a series of preliminary analyses, we calculated human nature, human
uniqueness and dehumanization overall subscales to represent the one and two
factor higher-order models, respectively. Associations between these broader
subscales and previously mentioned criterion-related variables were found to be
similar to what is noted in Tables 1–6.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 14
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
we believe the measure can be readily adapted to assess
other types of relationships, including parent-child relationships
and relationships between peers and colleagues. Finally, future
research should investigate whether dehumanization plays a
causal role in the enactment of emotional and physical abuse, or
merely a variable that is associated with, but not a causal factor
of, negative relationship experiences.
CONCLUSION
Despite increasing scholarly interest in the concept of
dehumanization, and recent application of the phenomenon
to the study of interpersonal processes, we still know very
little about the manifestation of dehumanization within
romantic relationships. We also do not clearly understand the
consequences of being denied humanness by one’s romantic
partner. This paper has made some novel and important
contributions to the study of dehumanization, enhancing the
field’s understanding of how dehumanization is conceptualized,
assessed, and evaluated within romantic relationships. It is
hoped that the DIRRS spurs on dehumanization research
within the context of romantic (and other close) relationships,
continuing the growth of dehumanization research within
the field of social psychology, and in particular the study of
interpersonal processes.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by the Deakin University’s Human Ethics Committee.
The patients/participants provided their written informed
consent to participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
BP and GK conceived the presented idea, carried out the
study, and performed the analytical computations. EM provided
critical feedback and helped to shape the research. All authors
contributed to the final manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. (2014). Feeling Less Than Human: Exploring the Causes and
Consequences of Dehumanization From the Target’s Perspective . ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global Database. Ph.D. thesis, ProQuest,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., and Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness
and human nature to cultural groups: distinct forms for subtle dehumanization.
Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 12, 789–805. doi: 10.1177/1368430209340415
Bain, P., Vaes, G., and Leyens, J.-P. (2014). Humanness and Dehumanization.
New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi: 10.1177/1368430209340415
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 3, 193–209. doi: 10.4324/9781315799292-3
Bastian, B., and Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: the dehumanizing
effects of social ostracism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46, 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.
2009.06.022
Bastian, B., and Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: cognitive and
emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33,
295–303. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
Bastian, B., Jetten, J., Chen, H., Radke, H. R. M., Harding, J. F., and Fasoli,
F. (2012a). Losing our humanity: the self-dehumanizing consequences of
social ostracism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39, 156–169. doi: 10.1177/
0146167212471205
Bastian, B., Jetten, J., and Radke, H. R. M. (2012b). Cyber-dehumanization: violent
video game play diminishes our humanity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 486–491.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.10.009
Bastian, B., Jetten, J., and Haslam, N. (2014). “An interpersonal perspective on
dehumanization,” in Humanness and Dehumanization, eds P. Bain, G. Vaes, and
J.-P. Leyens, (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 205–224.
Bolger, N., and Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of support visibility on adjustment
to stress: experimental evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92, 458–475.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458
Borjesson, W. I., Aarons, G. A., and Dunn, M. E. (2003). Development and
confirmatory factor analysis of the abuse within intimate relationships scale.
J. Interpers. Violence 18, 295–309. doi: 10.1177/0886260502250089
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd Edn.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cramer, D. (1986). An item factor analysis of the revised barrett-lennard
relationship inventory. Br. J. Guid. Counc. 14, 314–325. doi: 10.1080/
03069888608253521
Eldridge, K. A., and Christensen, A. (2002). “Demand-withdraw communication
during couple conflict: a review and analysis,” in Understanding Marriage:
Developments in the Study of Couple Interaction, eds P. Noller, and J. A.
Feeney, (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 289–322. doi: 10.1017/
cbo9780511500077.016
Feeney, B. C., and Collins, N. L. (2014). A new look at social support: a theoretical
perspective on thriving through relationships. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19,
113–147. doi: 10.1177/1088868314544222
Feeney, J. A. (2009). “When love hurts: understanding hurtful events in couple
relationships,” in Feeling Hurt in Close Relationships, ed. A. Vangelisti,
(Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press), 313–335. doi: 10.1017/
cbo9780511770548.016
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., and Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement
of perceived relationship quality components: a confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 340–354. doi:
10.1177/0146167200265007
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., and Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate
relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76, 72–89.
Fraley, C. R., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., and Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011).
The experiences in close relationships—relationship structures questionnaire:
a method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychol.
Assess. 23, 615–625. doi: 10.1037/a0022898
Furtis, T. G., Campbell, K., Nielsen, R. B., and Burnell, S. R. (2010). The
communication patterns questionnaire—short form: a review and assessment.
Fam. J. 18, 275–287. doi: 10.1177/1066480710370758
Hardesty, D. M., and Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in
scale development. Implications for improving face validity of measures of
unobservable constructs. J. Bus. Res. 57, 98–107. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)
00295-8
Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., and Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis
of the Job diagnostic survey: good news and bad news. J. Appl. Psychol. 70,
461–468. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.461
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Rev. 10, 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 15
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
Haslam, N. (2015). “Dehumanization and intergroup relations,” in Handbook of
Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes, eds M. Milkulincer, and
P. R. Shaver, (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), Vol 2,
295–314.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., and Bastian, B. (2005). More human
than you: attributing humanness to self and others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
89, 937–950. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
Haslam, N., and Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 399–423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., and Holland, E. (2013). “The psychology of humanness,”
in Objectification and (de)Humanization: 60th Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, ed. S. J. Gervais, (New York, NY: Springer Science and Business
Media), 25–51. doi: 10.1007/978-1- 4614-6959-9_2
Haslam, N., and Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent researchon dehumanization. Curr.
Opin. Psychol. 11, 25–29. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development in the study of behavior in
organizations. J. Manag. 21, 967–988. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for
use in survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Methods 1, 104–121. doi: 10.1177/
109442819800100106
Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ.
Modeling A Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Kelman, H. (1976). “Violence without restraint: reflections on the dehumanization
of victims and victimizers,” in Varieties of Psychohistory, eds G. Kren, and L.
Rappoport, (New York, NY: Springer), 282–314.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th
Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kteily, N. S., and Bruneau, E. (2017). Darker demons of our nature: the need to
(re)focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
26, 487–494. doi: 10.1177/0963721417708230
Kteily, N. S., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., and Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man:
theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 109, 901–931. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000048
Kunce, L., and Shaver, P. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach
to caregiving in romantic relationships. Adv. Personal. Relationsh. 5,
205–237.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., and Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an
interpersonal process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and
perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. 74, 1238–1251. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes,J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., and
Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: the attribution of secondary
emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4, 186–197.
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_06
Loughnan, S., and Haslam, N. (2006). Animals and android: implicit associations
between social categories and nonhumans. Psychol. Sci. 18, 116–121. doi: 10.
1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., and Grayson, D. (2010). Is more ever too
much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis.
Multivar. Behav. Res. 33, 181–220. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
Murphy, C. M., and Hoover, S. A. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating
relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence Vict. 14, 39–53. doi: 10.
1891/0886-6708.14.1.39
Murphy, K. R., and Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological Testing: Principles and
Applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Muthèn, B., and Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the
factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br. J. Math. nd Stat. Psychol. 38,
171–189. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edn.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pizzirani, B., and Karantzas, G. C. (2019). The association between dehumanization
and intimate partner abuse. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 36, 1527–1541. doi: 10.1177/
0265407518811673
Ruehlman, L. S., and Karoly, P. (1991). With a little flak from my friends:
development and preliminary validation of the Test of negative social exchange
(TENSE). Psychol. Assess. 3, 97–104. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.3.1.97
Simpson, J. A., Fletcher, G. J. O., and Campbell, L. (2001). “The structure and
function of ideal standards in close relationships,” in Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes, eds G. J. O. Fletcher, and M. S. Clark,
(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers), 86–106. doi: 10.1002/9780470998557.ch4
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Pizzirani, Karantzas and Mullins. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754

fpsyg-10-02754 December 4, 2019 Time: 15:24 # 16
Pizzirani et al. Dehumanization Within Romantic Relationships
APPENDIX A
The Dehumanization in Romantic Relationships Scale (DIRRS) consists of 24 items (12 items that assess dehumanization perpetration
and 12 items that assess dehumanization receipt). Each statement is answered on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). For the perpetration items, instructions are to rate each item based on how the individual generally
behaves in their romantic relationship. For the target items, instructions are to rate each item based on how their romantic partner
generally behaves. Factor categories are shown below as subheadings and should be omitted when the scale is administered.
Generally, I treat my partner. . . Generally, my partner treats me. . .
Immature Immature
. . . as if they were a child . . . as if I am a child∗
. . . as if they are immature . . . as if I am immature∗
. . . as if they can’t manage on their own . . . as if I can’t manage on my own
Unrefined Unrefined
. . . as if they embarrass me . . . as if I embarrass them
. . . as if they lack social status . . . as if I lack social status
. . . as if I am ashamed of them . . . as if they are ashamed of me
Exploitable Exploitable
. . . as a means to an end .. . as a means to an end∗
. . . as if they are only valuable for what they can offer . . . as if I am only valuable for what I can offer
. . . as if their opinion doesn’t count . . . as if my opinion doesn’t count
Emotionless Emotionless
. . . as if they are heartless . . . as if I am heartless
. . . as if they are unresponsive . . . as if I am unresponsive
. . . as if they are cold . . . as if I am cold
∗Denotes items retained from Bastian and Haslam (2011) measure of dehumanization.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 December 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 2754