09/09 The Destructive Nature of Conflict II & Related Studies

What is Dehumanization?

• Dehumanization is the perception or treatment of a person as less than fully human.
  • Denying human qualities to others.
  • Attributing animal-like or machine-like/object qualities to humans.
  • Precursor to moral exclusion: it paves the way for maltreatment and lower status.
  • Demonizes the target and justifies mistreatment or exclusion from moral consideration.
• Historical examples cited:
  • Holocaust: Jews referred to as rats.
  • Rwandan genocide: Tutsis called cockroaches.
  • Slavery: Blacks thought of as property, likened to apes.

Ubuntu: I am because we are

• Ubuntu is a concept from the Bantu language of South Africa meaning "I am because we are."
• Implications:
  • We cannot exist in isolation; identity is formed through relationships with others.
• Also notes a flip: people can feel dehumanized by their own actions or by the actions of others toward them.

Hypotheses about Ostracism and Dehumanization

• Perpetrators will see themselves as less human (self-dehumanization) after engaging in harmful behavior (ostracism).
• FIRST: Engaging in ostracism should enhance perceptions that one’s own actions are immoral, and it is this perception that underlies self-dehumanization.
• SECOND: Self-dehumanization will motivate prosocial behavior and self-sacrifice.
• THIRD: (the transcript lists a third hypothesis but does not specify the content of the third item).

Study 1: Methods and Key Measures

• Participants: N = 53 undergraduates (nf = 36, nm = 17).
• Design: Writing task to manipulate ostracism vs. control.
  • Ostracism condition: write for 10–15 minutes about a time you rejected or socially excluded another person.
  • Control condition: write about an everyday interaction you had with another person yesterday.
• Dependent measures:
  • Feelings of immorality (example item: "I felt like what I did was very immoral").
  • Two dimensions of dehumanization:
  • Human Uniqueness: attributes that distinguish humans from animals (refinement, civility, morality, higher cognition).
  • Human Nature: traits that distinguish humans from objects/machines (emotionality, warmth, cognitive flexibility).
• Note on constructs:
  • Dehumanization has two facets used here: Human Uniqueness and Human Nature.

Study 2–4: Self-Humanity and Mediation (Overview)

• Figure 1: Mean self-humanity across Conditions (Studies I–IV) shows how self-perceptions of humanity differ when participants recalled ostracism versus control.
• Figure 2: Mediation effects of perceived immorality on self-humanity (Study I).
  • Ostracism increases perceived immorality; higher immorality relates to lower self-humanity.
  • Some direct effects of ostracism on self-humanity are reduced when accounting for immorality (mediation pattern).
  • Reported statistics (from the slide):
  • t = 6.31, ext{ } p < 0.001 for the effect of ostracism on immorality.
  • Immorality effects include values such as t = -1.62, ext{ } p = 0.112 and t = 2.31, ext{ } p = 0.025 in various paths; direct ostracism-to-self-humanity path can be nonsignificant when immorality is included (e.g., t = -1.62, ext{ } p = 0.112).
  • The path labeled "Social Disconnection" is also part of the mediation model.
• Figure 5: Mediation effects of self-humanity on volunteering (Study 4) controlling for self-esteem and mood.
  • Key points: Ostracism lowers self-humanity, lower self-humanity predicts less volunteering; the indirect path through self-humanity to volunteering is significant (e.g., t = 2.22,
    p = 0.034 for the path involving ostracism and self-humanity).
  • Some path statistics appear with very large negative coefficients in the notes (e.g., "-49, p = .625"), which likely reflects formatting issues in the transcript; the reliable takeaway is the mediation from self-humanity to volunteering remains when controlling for mood and self-esteem.

Feeling Dehumanized After Being Offended (Community College Sample)

• Sample: N = 110 community college students.
• Method: Recalled a time when someone treated them with a lack of respect or dignity.
• What counts as offenses:
  • Over half involved belittling or being censured/criticized.
  • Other offenses included physical attacks, ostracism, being made to look bad, unfair judgments, disobedience, and being ignored.
• Offenders included:
  • Colleagues (26%),
  • Friends (17%),
  • Strangers (17%),
  • Family (11%),
  • Romantic partners (8%).
• Felt states at the time:
  • Small, reduced, diminished, like less of a person, invisible, silenced, numb, powerless, devalued, ashamed.
  • Example labels observed in quotes: EMASCULATED, INSIGNIFICANT, POWERLESS, INFERIOR, VERY SMALL, WORTHLESS, ASHAMED, VIOLATED, UNIMPORTANT, USED, STUPID, EMBARRASSED, like there was something wrong with me that deserved harsher treatment.
• Core finding: Feeling dehumanized occurs after being offended in everyday interactions, suggesting that dehumanization is a reasonable reaction to social mistreatment.

Discussion Prompts (Link to Ubuntu and Dehumanization)

• Do everyday offenses feel dehumanizing, whether as the perpetrator or the target?
• Do the researchers’ findings generalize to other actions beyond ostracism and offense?
• When might offenders NOT feel dehumanized?
• How does offense severity affect dehumanization?
• Can low-severity offenses still be dehumanizing? Are high-severity offenses always dehumanizing?
• After a dehumanizing experience (as transgressor or victim), what are potential strategies to rehumanize oneself or others?
• How do the conclusions relate to the concept of Ubuntu (interconnectedness and mutual humanity)?

Negative Relationships in the Workplace (Morrison, 2008)

• Research question: How do negative, conflicting relationships at work relate to job outcomes and team dynamics?
• Key statistic: 71% of workers report being insulted, demeaned, ignored, or otherwise mistreated by coworkers and/or superiors.
• Core hypotheses:
  • A: Negative relationships relate to reduced job satisfaction.
  • B: Negative relationships relate to reduced extrinsic job satisfaction more than intrinsic.
  • C: Negative relationships relate to increased intention to turnover.
  • D: Negative relationships relate to lower organizational commitment.
  • E: Negative relationships relate to less workgroup cohesion.

Methods (Workplace Study)

• Participants: N = 412; mean age ar{age} = 35; 69 ext{%} ext{ female}, 31 ext{% male}.
• Negative relationships in the workplace were assessed with a screen asking whether a coworker fits the criteria: not a friend, but you interact regularly and would not continue the relationship if you did not work here, characterized by disrespect, disagreement, dislike, conflict, or animosity.

Measures

• Job Satisfaction (Job Satisfaction Scale, JSS): 15 aspects measured on a 7-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied).
  • Extrinsic Job Satisfaction: Physical work conditions, Rate of pay, Hours worked.
  • Intrinsic Job Satisfaction: Freedom to choose your own method of working, Recognition for good work.
• Intention to Turnover: 3 items on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g., "I will probably quit my job in the next year.")
• Organizational Commitment: 15 items on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g., "I am proud to tell others I am a part of this organization.")
• Workgroup Cohesion: 9 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., "Members of our team are very willing to share information with other team members about our work.")

Findings (Workplace Study)

• Results supported every hypothesis: Compared to those with no negative relationships, those with at least one negative relationship:
  • Were less satisfied with their job, both extrinsic and intrinsic (extrinsic effects stronger).
  • Reported less organizational commitment.
  • Reported less cohesive workgroups.
  • Were more likely to report an intention to leave their job.

Discussion & Practical Implications

• Limitations to consider: the methodology used, potential selection biases, cross-sectional design (if applicable), and reliance on self-reports.
• Real-world relevance: negative relationships in the workplace can undermine job satisfaction, commitment, cohesion, and retention; addressing these relationships could improve organizational outcomes.
• Preventative measures for corporations: identify, monitor, and mitigate antagonistic interactions; promote respectful communication; invest in conflict resolution and team-building; structured feedback processes; leadership training on inclusion and dehumanization risk cues.

Key Takeaways Across Studies

• Ostracism and offense can trigger perceptions of immorality and dehumanization, both in those who alienate others and in those who are targeted.
• Dehumanization can be understood through two dimensions: Human Uniqueness and Human Nature.
• Ubuntu emphasizes interconnectedness and can be a lens to interpret the social costs of dehumanization.
• Self-dehumanization may motivate prosocial behavior in some contexts (e.g., volunteering) but can also reduce personal well-being and social engagement if uncontrolled.
• Negative interpersonal dynamics in the workplace have tangible consequences for satisfaction, commitment, cohesion, and turnover intentions.

Notation and References (from transcript)

• Historical examples of dehumanization: Holocaust, Rwanda genocide, slavery.
• Key concepts: self-dehumanization, ostracism, social disconnection, perceived immorality, Ubuntu.
• Measures used: JSS (extrinsic vs intrinsic), intention to turnover, organizational commitment, workgroup cohesion.
• Sample sizes/numbers mentioned:
  • Study 1: N = 53,
    f = 36,
    m = 17
  • Community college offense study: N = 110
  • Workplace study: N = 412,
    ar{age} = 35,
    ext{gender distribution} ext{ ~} 69 ext{% female}
• Statistical references (selected):
  • t = 6.31, ext{ } p < 0.001
  • t = 2.31, ext{ } p = 0.025
  • p < 0.001 and p = 0.029 (various paths)
  • Mediation findings involving perceived immorality and self-humanity (Study I) and self-humanity on volunteering (Study 4)