The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 32 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own interpretation · 21 Own result · 13 No full text of the sources · 4 Partly supported · 3 Own method · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Social neuroscience has reliably shown that participants normally activate a social-cognition neural network to pictures and thoughts of other people”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Amodio & Frith, 2006 source
- Partly supportedcites Overwalle, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Harris & Fiske, 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“People also anthropomorphize a range of inanimate objects and animals (Kwan & Fiske, 2008; Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kwan & Fiske, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harris & Fiske, 2006 source
- Supportedcites Harris & Fiske, 2007 source
The Task main effect section reports greater right superior temporal sulcus activity for humanized than dehumanized actors, supporting the STS portion attributed to Harris and Fiske (2007). The Discussion treats the interpretation as possible dehumanization, consistent with the citing sentence’s cautious wording. No page number is available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“but more recently, has been active when participants needed to override a prepotent response to endorse sacrificing dehumanized targets (Cikara, Farnsworth, Harris, & Fiske, 2010).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cikara, Farnsworth, Harris, & Fiske, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and rate them differently on a number of human-perception dimensions”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 1 demonstrates that participants do fail to spontaneously think about the contents of these targets’ minds when imagining a day in their life”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 3:1 deviant-cell contrast analyses revealed no significant differences in adjectives, interpretive-action verbs, or descriptive-actions verbs used in the descriptions of any type of social target.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Verb Usage
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found parametric modulation of the right anterior insula with warmth ratings, t(19) = −4.31, p < 4.76E−4, partial η2 = 0.49, at x = 38, y = 13, z = 15, 312 voxels”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Harris, McClure, van den Bos, Cohen, & Fiske, 2007 source
The Stimulus valence interaction section reports less arMPFC activity for negative than positive people, and the Discussion says the social-tuning finding replicated across social and evaluative tasks. The Regional Distinctions Within the MPFC section relates this pattern to earlier findings of reduced MPFC activity for extremely negative social groups. The paper thus supports replication across stimuli and task contexts; the inference that this suggests reliability is the citing authors’ own. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Ratings Data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceivers moreover view these targets as less typically human, unfamiliar, dissimilar, unintelligent, inarticulate, cold, incompetent, and having more ups and downs in life”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kwan & Fiske, 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > METHOD > Data Analysis Strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, a pair of independent raters separately classified 200 verbs, resulting in an inter-rater r(100) = .75, p < .05.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > METHOD > Coding Scheme
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > Study 1
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Semin & Fiedler, 1988 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wording created no differences, so all analyses collapse across wording.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > METHOD > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By denying a person full humanity, perhaps inhumane behavior like torture and genocide becomes permissible.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results provide significant leads for further investigating the dehumanized perception that may underlie the ability to inflict severe harm on other people.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having a mind is a uniquely human trait, suggesting dehumanized others may be treated more like objects in the environment without internal states.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Having a mind is a uniquely human trait.
In the paper
“Of course, dehumanization has been studied in social psychology since Allport (1954) described it as the worst kind of prejudice.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Allport, 1954
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variety of modulation with this rating dimension suggests a number of psychological processes engaged during this estimation.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > General Discussion
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This neural region is implicated in cognitive control or conflict resolution (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001)”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This should be considered as another possible psychological mechanism of torture, as implicated in people denying obvious humanity to other people.”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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”
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”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Ratings Data
“dehumanized targets are rated significantly lower on 10 out of 14 rating dimensions”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Ratings Data
“competence t(115) = −6.11, p < .05, warmth t(115) = −3.26, p < .05, similarity t(115) = −3.53, p < .05, familiarity t(115) = −3.36, p < .05, articulateness t(115) = −5.23, p < .05, intelligence t(115) = −7.19, p < .05, ease of mentalizing t(115) = −2.26, p < .05, and ease of inferring dispositions t(115) = −3.10, p < .05”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
“right anterior insula with warmth ratings, t(19) = −4.31, p < 4.76E−4, partial η2 = 0.49, at x = 38, y = 13, z = 15, 312 voxels”
§ Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide? > RESULTS > Results and Discussion
“left posterior insula with competence ratings, t(19) = 4.27, p < 5.21E−4, partial η2 = 0.49, at x = 38, y = 13, z = 15, 54 voxels”
Citations
Cites
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · Cited by 7,364 · cited 4×
“Two pretested pictures represented each quadrant of the warmth-by-competence Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002), as follows (the typical emotion for each pair of social targets appears in parentheses): female college student and male American firefighter (pride), business woman and…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationConflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness
(Bud) Craig, A. D. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2555 · Cited by 6,657 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundUniversal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567
Self-citationMeeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition
Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1884 · Cited by 3,782 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundAn Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1416950 · Cited by 3,340 · cited 1×
“Participants infer the intentions of point-light walkers (Heberlein, Adolphs, Tranel, & Damasio, 2004) and shapes in biological motion (Heider & Simmel, 1944), objects that objectively do not have N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript cognitions and emotions.”
BackgroundDehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundGray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134475 · Cited by 2,342
Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis
Van Overwalle, F. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20547 · Cited by 1,792
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dehumanization and Infrahumanization
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045 · Cited by 1,286
“A small number of neuroimaging studies (Harris & Fiske 2006, 2011) reveal a lack of activation of social cognition networks in the brain when low-low targets are present.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialInstitutionalizing passion in world politics: fear and empathy
Crawford, N. C. (2014) · International Theory · doi:10.1017/s1752971914000256 · Cited by 287
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100615617791 · Cited by 280
“The other is the literature on the dehumanization of out-groups (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008; L. T. Harris & Fiske, 2011; Haslam, 2006; Staub, 1992), especially as it is manifested in the military and police professions.”
BackgroundDehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war
Viki, G. T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006 · Cited by 196
Grewal, D., Kroschke, M., Mende, M., Roggeveen, A. L., & Scott, M. L. (2020) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.03.001 · Cited by 175
“Dehumanization is frequently linked to decreases in the inferred warmth and competence of an observed target (Harris & Fiske, 2011).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Zeitschrift für Psychologie
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 219
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 175-181
- ISSN
- 0044-3409 (ISSN-L)
- 2190-8370
- 2151-2604
- PMC
- PMC3915417
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
