#Infrahumanization
LightNews LightNews
alexh.bsky.social
An example is this popular video series (eagleman.com/podcast/what...) claiming that calling people 'rats' or 'vermin' etc. is a major contributor to crimes against humanity, but the underlying research is highly confounded or has other major flaws (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...)
To what extent is research on infrahumanization confounded by intergroup preference?
The most prominent social psychological account of dehumanization, infrahumanization theory, argues outgroups are dehumanized to the extent they are denied uniquely human emotions. Recent critiques have identified a confound in previous research ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
January 29, 2026 at 5:49 AM
allisonbetus.bsky.social
Dehumanization and Infrahumanization - www.annualreviews.org/content/jour...
Dehumanization and Infrahumanization
We review early and recent psychological theories of dehumanization and survey the burgeoning empirical literature, focusing on six fundamental questions. First, we examine how people are dehumanized,...
www.annualreviews.org
January 16, 2026 at 9:54 AM
rb-br.bsky.social
Does being reminded of your ingroup's role in the harm experienced by outgroup members lead you to see them as feeling less 'human' emotions? Looking at inequalities arising from climate change and fast fashion, our new paper at @plosone.org challenges this earlier claim in #dehumanization research.
Does feeling collective responsibility for intergroup harm lead to infrahumanization?
Previous research has suggested that subtle dehumanization can occur as a consequence of harming others. According to this research, participants who feel a sense of collective responsibility for thei...
doi.org
May 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
geospatial.fm
Geospatial analysis of infrahumanization (paper www.researchgate.net/publication/...). Visualization of all bombing sorties of the Vietnam War. The diagram shows continua of human uniqueness and human nature. Where were those from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam on these according to the US? #GISchat
February 18, 2025 at 8:20 PM
lemonadegirl.bsky.social
If reducing the divide is the goal, it diminishes the opportunity for constructive dialogue.
Hurling insults does nothing to address policy differences. Its
infrahumanization.
September 5, 2026 at 3:44 AM
samvega.bsky.social
I think the only possible answer is that those children don't matter because of the circumstances of their birth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrahu...
Infrahumanisation (or infrahumanization) is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human.[1][2] The term was coined by Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in the early 2000s to distinguish what they argue to be an everyday phenomenon from dehumanisation (denial of humanness) associated with extreme intergroup violence such as genocide. According to Leyens and colleagues, infrahumanisation arises when people view their ingroup and outgroup as essentially different (different in essence) and accordingly reserve the "human essence" for the ingroup and deny it to the outgroup. Whether a "subhuman" classification means "human but inferior" or "not human at all" may be academic, as in practice it corresponds to prejudice regardless (for example, compare the Nazi idea of the Untermensch).
April 23, 2025 at 7:58 AM
amerliberal.bsky.social
The video Trump shared on Truth Social today is classic DEHUMANIZATION ‼️
It fits the clinical criteria for DEHUMANIZATION for several reasons:
The video Trump shared on Truth Social today is classic dehumanization ‼️ In the context of the racist trope used in the video—depicting the former President and First Lady as apes—the act moves past "caricature" or "insult" and fits the clinical criteria for dehumanization for several reasons: 1. The Animal Metaphor (Infrahumanization) As we noted, a primary driver of dehumanization is the use of animal metaphors to strip away human status. By superimposing the faces of the Obamas onto primates, the imagery attempts to shift them from the category of "human" to "sub-human." This isn't just an attack on their politics; it is an attack on their biological personhood. 2. The Logic of "Othering" The video frames the Obamas within a narrative of "election conspiracy" and "threat." This aligns with the "Parasite/Threat" narrative: The video suggests they are part of a system "tampering" with the country. By making them animals, the imagery suggests they lack the moral agency or "civilized" nature required to be part of the American political fabric. 3. Functional Objectification Because the clip was part of a larger montage promoting specific political claims, the Obamas are being used as functional objects—prop symbols designed to trigger a "disgust response" in the viewer. Their actual history, humanity, and service are erased and replaced by a visual shorthand for "the enemy." 4. The Shield of "Humor" (Banalization) The White House’s initial response—calling it an "internet meme" and "fake outrage"—is a textbook example of how dehumanization is normalized. By framing a grotesque image as "just a joke," the perpetrator attempts to lower the "moral cost" of the act. If it's a joke, then those who are offended are labeled as "too sensitive," which further isolates the targets. The Contrast Unlike a typical political cartoon—which might exaggerate a person’s nose or a specific policy failure while keeping them recognizably human—this video removes the "human" entirely. When you look at this through the lens of the "Hierarchy of Dehumanization": It moves from Prejudice (I don't like them) To Degradation (They are characters in a jungle) To Infrahumanization (They are not the same species as "us"). Using the term "dehumanization" here isn't just a political critique; it is a description of the psychological mechanism being employed to make the targets appear unworthy of the basic respect afforded to human beings.
February 6, 2026 at 7:21 PM
rb-br.bsky.social
Study 2 had a similar trend: Infrahumanization following harm did not occur in UK residents' perceptions of exploited textile workers in fast fashion supply chains. Again, awareness of harm led to greater attribution of negative emotions, regardless of emotion humanness or feeling responsible for it
Results of Study 2. Mean emotion attributions by condition, emotion humanness, and emotion valence are displayed. We found no evidence that inducing a sense of collective responsibility for the harm experienced by textile workers leads participants to infrahumanize them. Converging with the results of Study 1, participants seemed to rate outgroup members as experiencing negative emotions more strongly when harm against them was made salient. Note: Error bars represent ±1 SE. Shared = emotions shared with other animals. *** denotes p < .001; * denotes p < .05; NS denotes non-significant.
May 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
rb-br.bsky.social
In Study 1, this effect failed to replicate in UK residents’ perceptions of the emotions felt by people in Lagos, Nigeria, a city especially vulnerable to climate change. Regardless of responsibility or emotion humanness, one's awareness of outgroup harm led to more negative emotions being perceived
Results of Study 1. Mean emotion attributions by harm condition, emotion humanness, and emotion valence in Study 1 are shown. We observed no evidence that collective responsibility for harm induced infrahumanization of the outgroup. Instead, residents of Lagos were thought to experience negative emotions to a greater extent and positive emotions to a lesser extent when harm to them was made salient. Note: Error bars represent ±1 SE. Shared = emotions shared with other animals. *** denotes p < .001; NS denotes non-significant.
May 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
samvega.bsky.social
It's just the propaganda of infrahumanisation > dehumanisation, again, because humans seem to love doing this to each other, again. And they do it and say it's moral.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrahu...
Infrahumanisation (or infrahumanization) is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human.[1][2] The term was coined by Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in the early 2000s to distinguish what they argue to be an everyday phenomenon from dehumanisation (denial of humanness) associated with extreme intergroup violence such as genocide. According to Leyens and colleagues, infrahumanisation arises when people view their ingroup and outgroup as essentially different (different in essence) and accordingly reserve the "human essence" for the ingroup and deny it to the outgroup. Whether a "subhuman" classification means "human but inferior" or "not human at all" may be academic, as in practice it corresponds to prejudice regardless (for example, compare the Nazi idea of the Untermensch). The belief that the outgroup is less human than the ingroup is seldom consciously endorsed by individuals and instead is reflected in the way people tacitly think about the outgroup. Researchers have typically investigated infrahumanisation by looking at the types of emotions people believe ingroup and outgroup members possess.[3] Some emotions are considered unique to humans (e.g., love, regret, nostalgia), whereas others are viewed as common to both humans and animals (e.g., joy, anger, sadness). In a series of studies, Leyens and colleagues have widely replicated the finding that people attribute uniquely human emotions to the ingroup, but not the outgroup. According to infrahumanisation theory, the denial of uniquely human emotions to the outgroup is reflective of the belief that they are less human than the ingroup.
April 27, 2025 at 7:48 AM
rb-br.bsky.social
Despite successful manipulation of key variables, our studies found no evidence of infrahumanization following harm. Our work casts doubt on prior claims in the field, and contributes to an ongoing debate on the validity of psychological theories of dehumanization in explaining urgent social issues.
Mean scores for perceived extent of harm in Studies 1, 2, and 3. Perceived extent of harm was manipulated as intended in Study 1 (left panel), Study 2 (middle panel), and Study 3 (right panel). Participants in the harm responsible and harm not responsible conditions perceived outgroup members as experiencing significantly more harm than did participants in the no harm condition. Note: Error bars represent ±1 SE. *** denotes p < .001; NS denotes non-significant. Mean scores for sense of collective responsibility in Studies 1, 2, and 3. Sense of collective responsibility in Study 1 (left panel), Study 2 (middle panel), and Study 3 (right panel). Participants in the harm responsible condition felt that their ingroup was significantly more responsible for the harm experienced by outgroup members than did participants in the harm not responsible condition. Note: Error bars represent ±1 SE. *** denotes p < .001; ** denotes p < .005; * denotes p < .05; NS denotes non-significant.
May 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
enmodo.bsky.social
Here's is the TL;DW but worth watching for the discussion of Trump's use of Nazi propaganda tactics:

- Keep the public stressed
-Never admit fault
- Demonize enemies
- Eliminate all alternatives
- Never accept blame
- Focus on one common enemy
- Use big lies
- Repeat lies to stop critical thought
The Eight Rules of Propaganda: - Never allow the public to cool off (0:40–1:56): Constant crises keep the amygdala (fear center) active, effectively shutting down the prefrontal cortex needed for critical thinking. - Never admit fault (1:57–3:06): Based on research regarding shame resilience, the speaker suggests that not admitting fault protects the psychological identity followers have fused with the leader. - Never concede good in the enemy (3:07–4:26): By utilizing infrahumanization, the leader strips opponents of their humanity to justify harsh treatment and discourage empathy. - Never leave room for alternatives (4:27–5:44): The leader presents themselves as the only solution, catering to followers' need for cognitive closure and aversion to uncertainty. - Never accept blame (5:45–6:44): Through motivated reasoning, followers interpret evidence in ways that preserve their belief in the leader's perfection while blaming others for failures. - Concentrate on one enemy at a time (6:45–7:59): This addresses the significance quest theory, providing followers with a clear mission and a sense of purpose in fighting a common foe. - The "Big Lie" (8:00–9:32): Relying on belief perseverance, the speaker explains how massive, repetitive falsehoods become an "operating system" for followers, making them resistant to contradictory facts. - Repetition (9:33–11:31): Borrowing from Robert Lifton’s studies on cults, the video highlights how repetitive phrases (e.g., "fake news") function as "thought-stopping" mechanisms that prevent critical reflection.
July 30, 2026 at 11:03 PM
okovody.bsky.social
Infrahumanization: A more subtle form of dehumanization is infrahumanization, where in-group members attribute fewer uniquely human emotions (e.g., love, shame) to out-group members while still acknowledging emotions shared with animals (e.g., anger, fear).
September 22, 2025 at 2:21 PM
samvega.bsky.social
Human society generates privilege by oppressing other humans. This requires a vast rhetorical apparatus to justify such infrahumanisation and dehumanisation. If only humans spent that time on e.g. feeding all the children, instead.
Infrahumanisation (or infrahumanization) is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human.[1][2] It can also be subjectively defined as a result of group comparison that links with positive ingroup bias when the ingroup is seen as fully human in comparison to an outgroup that is viewed as lacking humanness.[3] The term was coined by Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in the early 2000s to distinguish what they argue to be an everyday phenomenon from dehumanisation (denial of humanness) associated with extreme intergroup violence such as genocide. According to Leyens and colleagues, infrahumanisation arises when people view their ingroup and outgroup as essentially different (different in essence) and accordingly reserve the "human essence" for the ingroup and deny it to the outgroup. Whether a "subhuman" classification means "human but inferior" or "not human at all" may be academic, as in practice it corresponds to prejudice regardless (for example, compare the Nazi idea of the Untermensch). The belief that the outgroup is less human than the ingroup is seldom consciously endorsed by individuals and instead is reflected in the way people tacitly think about the outgroup.
August 14, 2025 at 10:59 AM
samvega.bsky.social
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrahu...

"Infrahumanisation (or infrahumanization) is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human."
Infrahumanisation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
May 7, 2025 at 3:56 PM
samvega.bsky.social
Be better.
Infrahumanisation (or infrahumanization) is the tacitly held belief that one's ingroup is more human than an outgroup, which is less human.[1][2] The term was coined by Jacques-Philippe Leyens and colleagues in the early 2000s to distinguish what they argue to be an everyday phenomenon from dehumanisation (denial of humanness) associated with extreme intergroup violence such as genocide. According to Leyens and colleagues, infrahumanisation arises when people view their ingroup and outgroup as essentially different (different in essence) and accordingly reserve the "human essence" for the ingroup and deny it to the outgroup. Whether a "subhuman" classification means "human but inferior" or "not human at all" may be academic, as in practice it corresponds to prejudice regardless (for example, compare the Nazi idea of the Untermensch).
April 18, 2025 at 9:05 PM
roundsparrow.bsky.social
#FWakeInfrahumanization #Infrahumanization

#OutGroupHate #OutGroupDehuman
#OutGroupHateOpera
#FWakeInfrahuman #FWakeSubhuman

Infrahumanization is the tendency to view an outgroup as less human than one's own ingroup.
February 10, 2025 at 11:51 PM
rb-br.bsky.social
The final study reused the climate change context, but with more sensitive continuous measures that captured participants’ own views of emotion humanness and valence. Again, post-harm infrahumanization did not replicate, and harmed outgroup members were seen as experiencing more negative emotions.
Results of Study 3: Testing for infrahumanization following harm. The three regression models with emotion humanness as the predictor and emotion typicality for outgroup members (residents of Lagos) as the outcome are displayed. The small negative relationship between these variables did not differ between the three conditions. Note: Grey shading around the slope represents 95% CI. Results of Study 3: Testing for negative affect when harmed. The three regression models with emotion valence as the predictor and emotion typicality for outgroup members (residents of Lagos) as the outcome are displayed. As predicted, a negative relationship emerged in both the harm responsible and harm not responsible conditions, with each found to differ significantly from the positive relationship that emerged in the no harm condition. Note: grey shading around the slope represents 95% CI.
May 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
horusofbabel.bsky.social
I’m sick of all of this infrahumanization, my disciples, I know you desire to not be scattered—yet in your self founding you steal the Being of another. I say unto you, your violence has stained your hands. You are human no longer shattered by the divine you lusted after.
June 20, 2026 at 8:38 PM
mjbsp.bsky.social
The original claim might not be right (e.g., it's only a minor contributor, it's a post-hoc justification etc), I don't know.

But I don't think that subtle dehumanization/infrahumanization studies, especially those about low stakes prosocial behavior, say much about this.
January 30, 2026 at 3:28 PM
geospatial.fm
I continue to use Nick Haslam’s dehumanization continuum diagram as a tool to interpret what I saw. Here is the diagram again but against an animation of the bombs dropped on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam: youtu.be/wrIOj5zWzig
Vietnam War Bombing Sorties and Infrahumanization
YouTube video by The Geospatial Index
youtu.be
March 1, 2025 at 2:09 AM
brentasnavely.bsky.social
infrahumanization

dehumanization

demonization

KILL !!!
March 22, 2024 at 3:04 PM