Understanding the Relationship between Attribute-Based and Metaphor-Based Dehumanization

By S. Loughnan, Nick Haslam, Yoshihisa Kashima. 2009

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1d3d9913164092f67dd03073a628499d96ed95a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Maria Paola Paladino
2. Ann L. McGill
3. Jeroen Vaes

In Social Psychology

1. J. Leyens
2. Jeroen Vaes
3. Maria Paola Paladino
4. Mariana Pires Miranda
5. Maferima Touré-Tillery
6. Ann L. McGill
7. Nick Haslam
8. S. Loughnan

Citations in the corpus

• The uniquely human content of stereotypes (2010, background): “In this respect, showing the infrahumanization process through stereotypes would highlight the importance of a target-based approach (Paladino & Vaes, 2009) next to attribute-based and/or metaphorbased approaches (Loughnan et al., 2009) in dehumanization research.”
• We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup (2012, background): “Loughnan, Haslam, and Kashima (2009) differentiated between research on dehumanisation that focuses on the denial of human characteristics to others and that which focuses on the association of others to nonhuman entities.”
• Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers (2015, background): “Whereas humanizing makes nonhuman entities (e.g., objects, animals) more human-like, dehumanizing makes human beings more object-, automaton-, or animal-like (Loughnan, Haslam, and Kashima 2009).”