Embracing Humanity in the Face of Death: Why Do Existential Concerns Moderate Ingroup Humanization?

People humanize their ingroup to address existential concerns about their mortality, but the reasons why they do so remain ambiguous. One explanation is that people humanize their ingroup to bolster their social identity in the face of their mortality. Alternatively, people might be motivated to see their ingroup as more uniquely human (UH) to distance themselves from their corporeal “animal” nature. These explanations were tested in Australia, where social identity is tied less to UH and more to human nature (HN) which does not distinguish humans from animals. Australians attributed more HN traits to the ingroup when mortality was salient, while the attribution of UH traits remained unchanged. This indicates that the mortality-buffering function of ingroup humanization lies in reinforcing the humanness of our social identity, rather than just distancing ourselves from our animal nature. Implications for (de)humanization in intergroup relations are discussed.

[1]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  J. Michela.  Within-person correlational design and analysis. , 1990 .

[3]  Tom Pyszczynski,et al.  Terror management theory of self-esteem. , 1991 .

[4]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Role of consciousness and accessibility of death-related thoughts in mortality salience effects. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Terror Management Theory of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews: Empirical Assessments and Conceptual Refinements , 1997 .

[6]  Joel D. Lieberman,et al.  Terror management and aggression: evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  R. Cornwell,et al.  I am not an animal: mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Simona Sacchi,et al.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Castano Et Al. / Mortality Salience and Ingroup Entitativity I Belong Therefore I Exist: Ingroup Identification, Ingroup Entitativity, and Ingroup Bias , 2022 .

[9]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Understanding human ambivalence about sex: The effects of stripping sex of meaning , 2002, Journal of sex research.

[10]  Jeroen Vaes,et al.  On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: the implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  J. Goldenberg,et al.  The Body Stripped Down , 2005 .

[12]  N. Haslam,et al.  More human than you: attributing humanness to self and others. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  N. Haslam,et al.  Conceptual beliefs about human values and their implications: human nature beliefs predict value importance, value trade-offs, and responses to value-laden rhetoric. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  N. Haslam.  Dehumanization: An Integrative Review , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[15]  Heejung S. Kim,et al.  The Group as a Resource: Reducing Biased Attributions for Group Success and Failure via Group Affirmation , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  J. Leyens,et al.  Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences , 2007 .

[17]  M. Paladino,et al.  Ours is human: on the pervasiveness of infra-humanization in intergroup relations. , 2009, The British journal of social psychology.

[18]  N. Haslam,et al.  Attributing Human Uniqueness and Human Nature to Cultural Groups: Distinct Forms of Subtle Dehumanization , 2009 .

[19]  N. Haslam,et al.  Afterimages of savages: implicit associations between primitives, animals and children. , 2010, The British journal of social psychology.

[20]  Nathan A. Heflick,et al.  "We are people": ingroup humanization as an existential defense. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  M. Paladino,et al.  The uniquely human content of stereotypes , 2010 .

[22]  N. Haslam,et al.  Blaming, praising, and protecting our humanity: the implications of everyday dehumanization for judgments of moral status. , 2011, The British journal of social psychology.

[23]  Yoshihisa Kashima,et al.  Folk Conceptions of Humanness , 2011 .

[24]  N. Haslam,et al.  Our Flaws Are More Human Than Yours , 2012, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[25]  Jeroen Vaes,et al.  We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup , 2012 .

[26]  P. Bain,et al.  Dehumanization as a Denial of Human Potentials: The Naïve Theory of Humanity Perspective , 2013 .

[27]  Jessica F. Harding,et al.  Losing Our Humanity , 2013, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[28]  P. Bain,et al.  Advances in understanding humanness and dehumanization , 2014 .