The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Subhuman, Inhuman, and Superhuman: Contrasting Humans with Nonhumans in Three Cultures
Abstract
To understand dehumanization, we must understand how humans are contrasted with nonhumans. Our work (Haslam, 2006) proposes two forms of dehumanization, in which people are denied uniquely human attributes and likened to animals, or denied human nature attributes and likened to robots. In the light of this model, we examined the mental capacities that are believed to differentiate humans from animals, robots, and supernatural beings in three cultures (Australia, China, Italy). Cross–culturally consistent patterns emerged, with humans differing from nonhumans on two dimensions that closely resembled our two proposed forms of humanness. Compared to humans, animals were seen as lacking higher cognitive powers and refined emotion, but also as having superior perceptual capacities. Robots chiefly lacked emotion– and desire–related capacities. Supernatural beings had superior cognitive and perceptual capacities. Implications for dehumanization are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069
Dehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919 · cited 4×
“Most basically, they offer support for the contents of the human/animal and human/robot contrasts proposed in our model (Haslam, 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationGray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1134475 · Cited by 2,342
How People Explain Behavior: A New Theoretical Framework
Malle, B. F. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2 · Cited by 538
Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism The 2002 Tajfel lecture
Leyens, J., Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Dovidio, J. F., Fiske, S. T., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M., Rodriguez‐Perez, A., Rodriguez‐Torres, R., & Vaes, J. (2003) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.170 · Cited by 314
Commonsense concepts of phenomenal consciousness: does anyone care about functional zombies?
Huebner, B. (2010) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-009-9126-6 · Cited by 72
Cited by
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., Bos, M. W., Lehmann, D. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88067-4_21 · Cited by 1,441
When We Need A Human: Motivational Determinants of Anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143 · Cited by 626
Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020240 · Cited by 587
The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043 · Cited by 488
Self-citationDon’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167211424291 · Cited by 411
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C.
- Venue
- Social Cognition
- Publisher
- Guilford Publications
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 248-258
- ISSN
- 0278-016X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130960398
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 33.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
