Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug

Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as "the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds" (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Valdesolo, Piercarlo (Author), Graham, Jesse (Author), Rai, Tage Shakti (Contributor)
Other Authors: Sloan School of Management (Contributor)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), 2018-11-05T13:35:59Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
Description
Summary:Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as "the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds" (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states in victims generates apathy that enables harm for instrumental gain, while recognition of those same states may be required to harm victims to satisfy moral motives (2). Instead, the substance of Fincher et al.'s (1) critique is that we fail to investigate broader, vaguely defined dimensions of dehumanization that could conceivably be related to moral violence. However, we consider our conceptual specificity and tight operationalization of dehumanization to be a feature of our research, not a bug.