Imagined otherness fuels blatant dehumanization of outgroups

Dehumanization, the denial of full humanness to others, underlies various atrocities and negative social outcomes. While sociological research emphasizes institutional processes and dehumanizing narratives, social psychology focuses on the denial of mind. This paper proposes that blatant dehumanization also stems from actively considering others' minds, specifically by perceiving 'imagined otherness' – the belief that an outgroup interprets the social world atypically compared to most humans. The researchers focus on the American political context, where increasing polarization creates a fertile ground to study dehumanization fueled by imagined otherness. The core research question is whether perceiving significant differences in how outgroups understand a shared concept (e.g., 'America') leads to greater dehumanization, even when considering general perceived difference and group identification.

Existing research on dehumanization divides into sociological and social psychological perspectives. Sociological studies emphasize institutional factors like the spread of dehumanizing norms and narratives, economic resources, and social network ties in shaping blatant dehumanization. Social psychology examines more subtle cognitive underpinnings, suggesting dehumanization involves denying mind to others—either actively suppressing or passively failing to consider their mental states. This paper bridges these perspectives, arguing that actively considering others' minds, particularly when perceiving 'imagined otherness,' can fuel blatant dehumanization. The paper draws on cultural sociology's work on schemas, proposing that differences in how individuals attribute schemas to outgroups versus the generalized other are crucial to understanding blatant dehumanization.

To test the hypothesis, the researchers employed two pre-registered studies: a correlational study (N=771) and an experimental study (N=398). Both focused on US Republicans and Democrats and their perceptions of the opposing party. The core measurement involved a novel schema elicitation task. Participants categorized sets of associated words (positive, negative, neutral) relative to the target concept 'America,' from four perspectives: their personal perspective, the perspective of the typical Republican, the perspective of the typical Democrat, and the perspective of 'most people.' This task aimed to overcome limitations of existing methods by separating interpretations from valences and mitigating social desirability bias. The correlational study assessed the relationship between generalized outgroup schematic distance (divergence between outgroup and generalized other schemas) and outgroup dehumanization (measured using the Ascent of Man scale). The experimental study manipulated perceived semantic difference between the opposing party and the typical respondent using a visual representation, measuring the resulting change in outgroup dehumanization. Control variables included party identification strength, ideological extremity, and extreme conservatism. Additional analyses explored heterogeneity in the relationship and the role of positive, negative, and neutral terms in schema divergence.

The correlational study found a positive association between imagined otherness (generalized outgroup schematic distance) and outgroup dehumanization, even after controlling for group identification and ideological extremity. This association remained robust when including alternative divergence measures (personal-outgroup and intergroup divergence) and a self-report measure of perceived atypicality. The experimental study provided causal evidence for the link between perceived schematic difference and outgroup dehumanization. Participants in the 'greater difference' condition, shown a visualization suggesting greater divergence between the outgroup and the generalized other, exhibited a significant increase in outgroup dehumanization compared to the 'less difference' condition. Supplemental analyses revealed that the association between imagined otherness and dehumanization is stronger when participants' personal schemas are closer to their ingroup schemas. Further analysis showed that outgroup schema distance based on negative terms was most strongly related to outgroup dehumanization.

The findings support the hypothesis that imagined otherness, the perception of significant outgroup differences in understanding important concepts, contributes to blatant dehumanization. This adds to existing theories by highlighting a subtle cognitive mechanism beyond simple denial of mind. The results have implications for understanding political polarization in the US, suggesting that perceived schematic differences, independent of affective polarization, fuel interparty hostility. The novel schema elicitation task provides a valuable tool for studying cultural schemas and intergroup dynamics. The study’s focus on the contested concept of 'America' offers a conservative test, as priming American identity can reduce interparty hostility. The strong correlation between affective polarization and dehumanization warrants further investigation into their relationship, as well as the potential moderating role of dehumanization on the relationship between affective polarization and support for anti-democratic practices.

This research demonstrates that perceived schematic differences, or imagined otherness, are significantly linked to outgroup dehumanization. This finding offers a new perspective on the mechanisms that drive dehumanization, highlighting the role of active consideration of others' minds. The developed schema elicitation task provides a valuable tool for future research into intergroup dynamics. Future research should explore the generalizability of findings to diverse group contexts, investigate potential reverse causality, and further unpack the content of schemas that drive dehumanization.

This study has some limitations. The theory posits that imagined otherness is most relevant for consequential social concepts, yet this assumption is not empirically tested. The study does not address scope conditions, particularly those related to social groups for which the concept of 'most people' lacks legitimacy. The experimental design does not rule out reverse causality (dehumanization leading to imagined otherness). While the Ascent of Man scale is widely used, it has limitations related to assumptions about human evolution and gender representation. Finally, the convenience sample from Prolific might limit the generalizability of the findings.