Cited by 176Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?

Open access
Harris, Lasana T., Fiske, Susan T.·2011·Zeitschrift für Psychologie

Abstract

Dehumanized perception, a failure to spontaneously consider the mind of another person, may be a psychological mechanism facilitating inhumane acts like torture. Social cognition - considering someone's mind - recognizes the other as a human being subject to moral treatment. Social neuroscience has reliably shown that participants normally activate a social-cognition neural network to pictures and thoughts of other people; our previous work shows that parts of this network uniquely fail to engage for traditionally dehumanized targets (homeless persons or drug addicts; see Harris & Fiske, 2009, for review). This suggests participants may not consider these dehumanized groups' minds. Study 1 demonstrates that participants do fail to spontaneously think about the contents of these targets' minds when imagining a day in their life, and rate them differently on a number of human-perception dimensions. Study 2 shows that these human-perception dimension ratings correlate with activation in brain regions beyond the social-cognition network, including areas implicated in disgust, attention, and cognitive control. These results suggest that disengaging social cognition affects a number of other brain processes and hints at some of the complex psychological mechanisms potentially involved in atrocities against humanity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/2151-2604/a000065

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

6 of 32 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Social neuroscience has reliably shown that people normally activate a social-cognition neural network when viewing or thinking about other people.

    “Social neuroscience has reliably shown that participants normally activate a social-cognition neural network to pictures and thoughts of other people”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Amodio & Frith, 2006 source
    • cites Overwalle, 2009 source

      The Conclusions (p. 21) describe a social-cognition circuit involving the TPJ and mPFC when people infer others’ goals and traits. But “Identifying the social other” (pp. 7, 14) distinguishes viewing faces and bodies, which engages visual-perception regions; the paper does not establish that merely viewing pictures of other people normally activates the social-cognition circuit. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Manipulations of social goals validate the prediction: inferring preference significantly increases MPFC and STS activity to otherwise dehumanized targets.

    “Besides manipulations of target persons, manipulations of social goals validate this prediction: Inferring preference, a mental-state inference, significantly increases MPFC and STS activity to these otherwise dehumanized targets (Harris & Fiske, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Harris & Fiske, 2007 source

      The Task main effect and Discussion report significantly greater mPFC activity during vegetable-preference inference than during age judgments, including for the disgust-eliciting targets. They do not report a corresponding STS increase from preference inference: the STS finding is a separate comparison in which activity was greater for other social-group members than for the disgust-eliciting targets, collapsed across tasks. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    People anthropomorphize a range of inanimate objects and animals.

    “People also anthropomorphize a range of inanimate objects and animals (Kwan & Fiske, 2008; Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kwan & Fiske, 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007 source

      In “Dimensions of Mind Perception” (page unavailable), respondents rated mental capacities in three nonhuman animals and a sociable robot, supporting the point that people attribute minds to animals and at least one nonliving entity. The paper does not establish anthropomorphism across a range of inanimate objects; the robot is the only such object studied. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    One indication of dehumanized perception may be reduced activation in the social-cognition neural network, including medial prefrontal cortex and superior temporal sulcus.

    “One indication of dehumanized perception may be reduced activation in the social-cognition neural network (see Amodio & Frith, 2006; Overwalle, 2009, for reviews), including medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC; Harris & Fiske, 2006) and superior temporal sulcus (STS; Harris & Fiske, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Harris & Fiske, 2006 source
    • cites Harris & Fiske, 2007 source
  • Premisecitation

    The ACC has been active when participants needed to override a prepotent response to endorse sacrificing dehumanized targets.

    “but more recently, has been active when participants needed to override a prepotent response to endorse sacrificing dehumanized targets (Cikara, Farnsworth, Harris, & Fiske, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cikara, Farnsworth, Harris, & Fiske, 2010 source

      The fMRI findings report ACC activation when participants judged sacrificing a low-warmth, low-competence target to save high-warmth, high-competence people; the paper also describes the former targets as dehumanized. But the General discussion says overriding moral aversion is a proposal, not an established explanation: participants may instead have felt less aversion, and the design cannot separate the effects of sacrificing the target from saving the ingroup. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The default decreased social-cognition neural activity to dehumanized targets replicates across stimuli and contexts, suggesting reliability.

    “The default, decreased social cognition neural activity to dehumanized targets, replicates across stimuli and contexts (Harris, McClure, van den Bos, Cohen, & Fiske, 2007), suggesting reliability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Harris, McClure, van den Bos, Cohen, & Fiske, 2007 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    7 out of the 10 human-perception rating dimensions successfully activated ROIs that met the reporting criteria; intelligence, articulateness, and ease of inferring dispositions failed to meet the criteria.

    “We found that 7 out of the 10 human-perception rating dimensions successfully activated ROIs that met our criteria for reporting (intelligence, articulateness, and ease of infer- ring dispositions failed to meet our criteria).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant differences appear on self-awareness, responsibility for their situation, or control over their situation.

    “Self-awareness, suggesting that participants think the target has an “inner life,” responsibility for their situation, and control over their situation, suggesting, respectively, that participants think the target has autonomy and agency, produced no significant differences either.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceivers view dehumanized targets as less typically human, unfamiliar, dissimilar, unintelligent, inarticulate, cold, incompetent, and having more ups and downs in life.

    “Perceivers moreover view these targets as less typically human, unfamiliar, dissimilar, unintelligent, inarticulate, cold, incompetent, and having more ups and downs in life”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Children commonly create imaginary others, both people and objects, and interact with them as if they exist.

    “Similarly, children commonly create imaginary others, both people (imaginary friends) and objects (imaginary food treats), effortlessly interacting with these targets as if they exist (see Kwan & Fiske, 2008, for examples).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kwan & Fiske, 2008 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    One-way, four-level ANOVAs followed by a 3:1 deviant-cell contrast best examined the data because the a priori hypothesis concerns a deviant cell in the four-cell SCM warmth-by-competence space.

    “One-way, four-level ANOVAs, followed by a 3:1 deviant- cell contrast, best examined the data, because our a priori hypothesis concerns a deviant cell in the four-cell SCM warmth-by-competence space.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    A pair of independent raters separately classified 200 verbs, resulting in an inter-rater r(100) = .75, p < .05.

    “First, a pair of independent raters separately classified 200 verbs, resulting in an inter-rater r(100) = .75, p < .05.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mental-state verbs describe actions in terms of the target's internal state; interpretive-action verbs interpret the target's action; descriptive-action verbs describe the action.

    “The most abstract, mental-state verbs, describe actions in terms of the target’s internal state (e.g., quench). Then follow interpretive-action verbs that interpret the target’s action (e.g., guzzle) and finally descriptive-action verbs (e.g., drink) simply describe the action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Semin & Fiedler, 1988 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The anterior insula has been implicated in disgust, interoception, and as part of a pain and punishment neural network.

    “The anterior insula has been implicated in disgust (Calder, 2003), interoception (Craig, 2009), and as part of a pain and punishment neural network (Seymour, Singer, & Dolan, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Calder, 2003 source
    • cites Craig, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Seymour, Singer, & Dolan, 2007 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Wording created no differences, so all analyses collapse across wording.

    “Wording created no differences, so all analyses collapse across wording.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    By denying a person full humanity, perhaps inhumane behavior like torture and genocide becomes permissible.

    “By denying a person full humanity, perhaps inhumane behavior like torture and genocide becomes permissible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These results provide significant leads for further investigating the dehumanized perception that may underlie the ability to inflict severe harm on other people.

    “These results provide significant leads for further investigating the dehumanized perception that may underlie the ability to inflict severe harm on other people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Having a mind is a uniquely human trait, suggesting dehumanized others may be treated more like objects in the environment without internal states.

    “Having a mind is a uniquely human trait, suggesting dehumanized others may be treated more like objects in the environment without internal states.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Having a mind is a uniquely human trait.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Dehumanization has been studied in social psychology since Allport described it as the worst kind of prejudice.

    “Of course, dehumanization has been studied in social psychology since Allport (1954) described it as the worst kind of prejudice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Allport, 1954
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Violating these rules should lead to feelings of remorse and guilt unless the victim is recategorized as nonhuman beyond the boundaries of moral protection.

    “Therefore, violating these rules should lead to feelings of remorse and guilt unless the victim is recategorized as nonhuman beyond the boundaries of moral protection.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    The variety of modulation with this rating dimension suggests a number of psychological processes engaged during this estimation.

    “The variety of modulation with this rating dimension suggests a number of psychological processes engaged during this estimation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Denial of typically human characteristics such as intelligence or language reduces targets to the level of animals, a phenomenon observed in African-American perception.

    “Denial of typically human characteristics, such as intelligence or language, reduces targets to the level of animals (Haslam, 2006), a phenomenon observed in African-American perception (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Haslam, 2006 source
    • cites Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Estimations of less typical humanity to social targets relate to increased conflict resolution, perhaps because participants are aware that the targets are human beings.

    “This suggests that estimations of less typical humanity to social targets relate to increased conflict resolution, perhaps because participants are obviously aware that the targets are indeed human beings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Theory suggests that acting beyond societal norms leads to moral exclusion, and outgroups allegedly operate beyond moral rules and values.

    “Theory has suggested that acting beyond societal norms leads to moral exclusion (Bar-Tal, 1989), and out- groups allegedly operate beyond moral rules and values (Opotow, 1990; Staub, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bar-Tal, 1989 source
    • cites Opotow, 1990 source
    • cites Staub, 1989
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The ACC is implicated in cognitive control or conflict resolution.

    “This neural region is implicated in cognitive control or conflict resolution (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The negative correlation between warmth ratings and a neural region implicated in disgust, interoception, and pain suggests that increased insula activation probably facilitates dehumanization and perhaps harmful behaviors such as torture.

    “However, the fact that this most important person perception dimension negatively correlates with a neural region implicated in these processes suggests that increased insula activation probably facilitates dehumanization (and perhaps harmful behaviors such as torture).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This should be considered another possible psychological mechanism of torture, as implicated in people denying obvious humanity to other people.

    “This should be considered as another possible psychological mechanism of torture, as implicated in people denying obvious humanity to other people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
22 of 22
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Considering another person's mind is what recognizes them as a human being entitled to moral treatment.

    “Social cognition – considering someone’s mind – recognizes the other as a human being subject to moral treatment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Person perception sets moral norms for the social interaction that follows.

    “Since person perception imbues the subsequent social interaction with moral norms”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Having a mind is a uniquely human trait.

    “Having a mind is a uniquely human trait”
3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentr(100) = 0.75reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(100) = .75, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(3, 93) = 0.2reported p = .9 · recomputed p = .896

    “F(3, 93) = .20, p = .90”

  • Consistentt(86.22) = 2.52reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .014

    “t(86.22) = 2.52, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -6.11reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(115) = −6.11, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -3.26reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(115) = −3.26, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -3.53reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(115) = −3.53, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -3.36reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(115) = −3.36, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -5.23reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(115) = −5.23, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -7.19reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(115) = −7.19, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -2.26reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .026

    “t(115) = −2.26, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(115) = -3.1reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(115) = −3.10, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(55.54) = 3.49reported p < .05 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(55.54) = 3.49, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(114) = -1.72reported p = .09 · recomputed p = .088

    “t(114) = −1.72, p = .09”

  • Consistentt(19) = -4.31reported p < .000476 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(19) = −4.31, p < 4.76e-4”

  • Consistentt(19) = 4.27reported p < .000521 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(19) = 4.27, p < 5.21e-4”

  • Consistentt(19) = -4.01reported p < .000769 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(19) = −4.01, p < 7.69e-4”

  • Consistentt(19) = 4.15reported p < .000597 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(19) = 4.15, p < 5.97e-4”

17 of 17

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The claimed count of significantly lower ratings exceeds the reported results

    Minor

    The results identify eight dimensions with significantly lower ratings. They also report significantly *more* ups and downs and only a marginal difference in typical humanity, so they do not support the claim that 10 dimensions were rated significantly lower.

  • Two differently located insula regions have identical coordinates

    Minor

    The right anterior and left posterior insula findings give exactly the same x, y, and z coordinates. A single coordinate cannot identify both of those locations.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Venue
Zeitschrift für Psychologie
Published
2011-01
Volume
219
Issue
3
Pages
175-181
ISSN
  • 0044-3409 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-8370
  • 2151-2604
OpenAlex
W2017180264
Cited by
173
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Zeitschrift für Psychologie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Princeton University
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD047879)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
dehumanization, social cognition, theory of mind, cognitive control, attention, atrocities, torture, homeless people, drug addicts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review