Despite evidence that dehumanizing language and metaphors are found in political discourse, extant research has largely overlooked whether voters dehumanize their political opponents. Research on dehumanization has tended to focus on racial and ethnic divisions in societies, rather than political divisions. Understanding dehumanization in political contexts is important because the social psychology literature links dehumanization to a variety of negative outcomes, including moral disengagement, aggression, and even violence. In this manuscript, I discuss evidence of partisan dehumanization during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign and demonstrate how a focus on dehumanization can expose new relationships between moral psychology and partisan identity. Using data from two surveys conducted in October of 2016, I show that partisans dehumanize their political opponents in both subtle and blatant ways. When I investigate the correlates of dehumanization, I find that partisans who blatantly dehumanize members of the opposing party prefer greater social distance from their political opponents, which is indicative of reduced interpersonal tolerance. I also find that blatant dehumanization is associated with perceptions of greater moral distance between the parties, which is indicative of moral disengagement. These results suggest that dehumanization can improve our understanding of negative partisanship and political polarization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Partisans did not uniformly identify as strong Democrats or Republicans—15% of the MTURK sample identified as a strong Democrat (n = 91) and 5% as a strong Republican (n = 31). In the student sample 10% of participants identified as a strong Democrat (n = 39) and 5% as a strong Republican (n = 21).
Additional analysis showed that the true independents, those that did not lean toward one party of the other, did not engage in partisan dehumanization. In addition, no relationship was observed between strength of identification with other Independents and scores on the dehumanization measures (see the Online Appendix). These findings must be interpreted cautiously, given the nature of the samples and the small numbers of true Independent identifiers they contain.
Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Lattanzio, S., Loughnan, S., & Volpato, C. (2014). Humanitarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. British Journal of Social Psychology,53(3), 573–584.
Bain, P., Park, J., Kwok, C., & Haslam, N. (2009). Attributing human uniqueness and human nature to cultural groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,12(6), 789–805.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review,3(3), 193–209.
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality,9(4), 253–269.
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior,24(2), 117–150.
Bastian, B., Laham, S. M., Wilson, S., Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2011). Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: The implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. British Journal of Social Psychology,50(3), 469–483.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis,20(3), 351–368.
Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Boccato, G., Capozza, D., Falvo, R., & Durante, F. (2008). The missing link: Ingroup, outgroup and the human species. Social Cognition,26(2), 224–234.
Bruneau, E., Jacoby, N., Kteily, N., & Saxe, R. (2018). Denying humanity: The distinct neural correlates of blatant dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,147(7), 1078–1093.
Castano, E. (2008). On the perils of glorifying the in-group: Intergroup violence, in-group glorification, and moral disengagement. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(1), 154–170.
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from mechanical turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics,2(4), 1–9.
Colvin, (2018, May 18). Trump says he’ll keep calling gang members ‘animals,’ despite uproar. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yda4rmsp.
Combs, D. J., Powell, C. A., Schurtz, D. R., & Smith, R. H. (2009). Politics, schadenfreude, and ingroup identification: The sometimes happy thing about a poor economy and death. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(4), 635–646.
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behavior: Groups as moral anchors. New York: Psychology Press.
Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., & Barreto, M. (2013). Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. European Review of Social Psychology,24(1), 160–193.
Ellemers, N., & van den Bos, K. (2012). Morality in groups: On the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,6(12), 878–889.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67(2), 243–251.
Fincher, K. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2016). Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,145(2), 131–146.
Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,72, 1–12.
Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94(2), 292–306.
Gramlich, J. (2017, December 19). Far more Americans say there are strong conflicts between partisans than between other groups in society. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y7vmrd8v.
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior,24(3), 171–197.
Hackel, L. M., Looser, C. E., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). Group membership alters the threshold for mind perception: The role of social identity, collective identification, and intergroup threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,52, 15–23.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,10(3), 252–264.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., & Bastian, B. (2005). More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,89(6), 937–950.
Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Laham, S., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In M. E. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 203–218). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association Press.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology,65, 399–423.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2016). How dehumanization promotes harm. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 140–158). New York: The Guilford Press.
Haslam, N., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology,11, 25–29.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology,22(1), 127–156.
Huddy, L. (2013). From group identity to political commitment and cohesion. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 737–773). New York: Oxford University Press.
Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2009). On assessing the political effects of racial prejudice. Annual Review of Political Science,12, 423–447.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science,51(1), 63–77.
Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review,109(1), 1–17.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly,76(3), 405–431.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science,59(3), 690–707.
Jackson, L. E., & Gaertner, L. (2010). Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by authoritarianism in support of war. Aggressive Behavior,36(4), 238–250.
Jones, P.E. (2019). Partisanship, political awareness, and retrospective evaluations, 1956-2016. Political Behavior. Firstview, 1–23.
Kalmoe, N., & Mason, L. (2018). Lethal mass partisanship: Prevalence, correlates, and electoral contingencies. Paper presented at the 2018 American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, Aug. 30-Sept. 2.
Kludt, T. (2016, Sept. 29). Harry Reid: ‘Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster.’ Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9h24yam.
Kouzakova, M., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Scheepers, D. (2014). At the heart of a conflict: Cardiovascular and self-regulation responses to value versus resource conflicts. Social Psychological and Personality Science,5(1), 35–42.
Kteily, N., & Bruneau, E. (2017). The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,43(1), 87–104.
Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,109(5), 901–931.
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,110(3), 343–370.
Lajevardi, N., & Oskooii, K. A. (2018). Old-fashioned racism, contemporary islamophobia, and the isolation of Muslim Americans in the age of Trump. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics,3(1), 112–152.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(2), 234–249.
Leidner, B. (2015). America and the age of genocide: labeling a third-party conflict “genocide” decreases support for intervention among ingroup-glorifying Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,41(12), 1623–1645.
Levendusky, Matthew. (2009). The partisan sort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,12(6), 747–762.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18(3), 302–318.
Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science,59(1), 128–145.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McAlister, A. L., Bandura, A., & Owen, S. V. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,25(2), 141–165.
McConnell, C., Y. Margalit, N. Malhotra, and M. Levendusky (2017, May 19). Research: Political polarization is changing how Americans work and shop. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yavtd2jp.
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science,2(2), 109–138.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology,40(2), 159–172.
Nagar, R., & Maoz, I. (2017). Predicting Jewish-Israeli recognition of Palestinian pain and suffering. Journal of Conflict Resolution,61(2), 372–397.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues,46(1), 1–20.
O’Sullivan, J. (2016, July 20). Trump advisor says Clinton should be ‘shot for treason. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/hxltv7a.
Pacilli, M. G., Roccato, M., Pagliaro, S., & Russo, S. (2016). From political opponents to enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,19(3), 360–373.
Reilly, K. (2016, Sept. 10). Read Hillary Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ remarks about Donald Trump supporters. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/zx996cl.
Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,38(6), 711–728.
Sindic, D., & Reicher, S. D. (2009). ‘Our way of life is worth defending’: Testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology,39(1), 114–129.
Stevenson, M. C., Malik, S. E., Totton, R. R., & Reeves, R. D. (2015). Disgust sensitivity predicts punitive treatment of juvenile sex offenders: The role of empathy, dehumanization, and fear. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,15(1), 177–197.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,33(47), 56–74.
Tatum, S. (2017). “Eric Trump: Democrats in Washington are ‘not even people.’” Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybfwvb9k.
Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who counts as an American?: The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Turner, P. J., & Smith, P. M. (1984). Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology,23(2), 97–111.
Utych, S. M. (2018). How dehumanization influences attitudes toward immigrants. Political Research Quarterly,71(2), 440–452.
Vandello, J. A., Michniewicz, K. S., & Goldschmied, N. (2011). Moral judgments of the powerless and powerful in violent intergroup conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,47(6), 1173–1178.
Viki, G. T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,49(3), 325–328.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Cassese, E.C. Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics. Polit Behav (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09545-w
- Social identity
- Political polarization
- Moral disengagement