Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 30 November 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

References

  • Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccato, G., Capozza, D., Falvo, R., & Durante, F. (2008). The missing link: Ingroup, outgroup and the human species. Social Cognition, 26(2), 224–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behavior: Groups as moral anchors. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2009). On assessing the political effects of racial prejudice. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 423–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kteily, N., & Bruneau, E. (2017). The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, Matthew. (2009). The partisan sort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagar, R., & Maoz, I. (2017). Predicting Jewish-Israeli recognition of Palestinian pain and suffering. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(2), 372–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 56–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utych, S. M. (2018). How dehumanization influences attitudes toward immigrants. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 440–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Erin C. Cassese

Authors
  1. Erin C. Cassese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin C. Cassese.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 479 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cassese, E.C. Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics. Polit Behav 43, 29–50 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09545-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09545-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation