Threatened groups deny outgroups distinctively human emotions

Evidence

Infra-humanization involves an unwillingness to attribute the capacity to experience the same types of subtle human emotions felt by the ingroup (e.g., nostalgia, guilt) to members of the outgroup. Instead, the outgroup is thought to be capable of experiencing only the same basic emotions as animals (e.g., anger, pleasure). — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 422

Intergroup threats also may increase the tendency to infra-humanize outgroups (Leyens et al. 2001). Infra-humanization involves an unwillingness to attribute the capacity to experience the same types of subtle human emotions felt by the ingroup (e.g., nostalgia, guilt) to members of the outgroup. Instead, the outgroup is thought to be capable of experiencing only the same basic emotions as animals (e.g., anger, pleasure). — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 20

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines infra-humanization precisely: denial of subtle human emotions (nostalgia, guilt) to outgroups, leaving only animal-common emotions like anger and pleasure.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 422; Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 20
• XREF: connects to: Highly identified members suppress guilt by shielding the group from threats. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 64; Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 38; the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: Ours, True, and the Identity That Defends Both”

Related

• People attribute uniquely human emotions only to their own group (similarity 0.82)
• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups (similarity 0.82)
• People attribute uniquely human secondary emotions to out-group members less than to in-group members. (similarity 0.81)
• Group members’ responses to threats to group image depend on how strongly they identify (similarity 0.81)
• Highly identified members suppress guilt by shielding the group from threats. (similarity 0.81)
• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived threat amplifies both in-group favoritism and out-group hostility (similarity 0.81)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.80)
• Threat biases memory, stereotype disconfirmation, and perceived outgroup size. (similarity 0.80)
• Group-defense reactions can be triggered without any conscious perception of group threat (similarity 0.80)
• Threat-driven cognitive biases facilitate and justify intergroup violence (similarity 0.80)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.79)
• Ingroup identification strength moderates whether group-level or individual-level threats drive attitudes. (similarity 0.79)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.79)
• Group anger drives confrontation while fear drives avoidance (similarity 0.79)