In line with the psychological essentialism perspective, Leyens et al. ( 13 2000) have hypothesized that people attribute different essences to groups and that they attribute more uniquely human characteristics to their own group than to out‐groups. Leyens et al. have focused on two types of emotions, which in Roman languages have specific labels, such as sentimientos and emociones in Spanish. A cross‐cultural study showed that sentimientos (or secondary emotions) are considered uniquely human emotions whereas emociones (or primary emotions) are perceived as nonuniquely human emotions. The present study focuses on whether this categorization into primary and secondary emotions is a spontaneous distinction that people use in their everyday lives, or whether, on the contrary, it is the result of experimental demands. The paradigm “Who says what to whom” was used to test this question. Geometrical shapes of different colours were systematically associated with different stimuli that varied in meaningfulness. In a first condition, shapes were associated with small or large items of furniture (meaningful categories) and with primary and secondary emotions. In a second condition, the items of furniture were replaced by words ending with a vowel or a consonant (meaningless categories). Subsequently, participants had to recognize which shape was associated with each stimulus. Intra‐category errors were significantly more numerous than inter‐category errors, except for the words ending with a vowel or a consonant. Stated otherwise, types of emotions were recognized like the meaningful difference between items of furniture. These results show that the distinction between primary and secondary emotions is an implicit one that people use spontaneously, and not as a result of task demands. The findings are discussed from the perspective of psychological essentialism and inter‐group relations.

Across two studies, we tested the relationship between the stereotype dimensions of sociability, morality, and competence and the two dimensions of humanness (human nature and human uniqueness). Study 1 considered real groups and revealed that sociability had greater power than morality in predicting human nature. For some groups, sociability also trumped competence in predicting human nature. By contrast, the attribution of human uniqueness was predicted by competence and morality. In Study 2, participants read a scenario depicting an unfamiliar group in stereotypical terms. Results showed that competence and sociability were the strongest predictors of human uniqueness and human nature, respectively. Although with nuances, both studies revealed that sociability, morality, and competence relate differently to the two dimensions of humanness.

Research on infrahumanization shows there is a strong tendency to deprive outgroups of the ability to experience secondary emotions when compared to ingroups. However, it is not known whether this tendency is also applied to social groups towards which ambivalent attitudes are held, such as individuals with Down syndrome. In the first study, participants were asked to attribute primary and secondary emotions to members of the ingroup (students) and outgroup (individuals with Down syndrome). The second study explored the effect of the physical features of Down syndrome on the differential association of emotions. A lexical decision task preceded by photographs of three face types (adults with Down syndrome, adults with ambiguous faces and adults without Down syndrome) was used for that purpose. The results showed a higher attribution of secondary emotions to members of the ingroup than to members of the outgroup. Also revealed that participants associated secondary emotions with the faces of adults without Down syndrome and with ambiguous faces far more quickly than with faces of individuals with Down syndrome. These results confirm the existence of infrahumanization bias and the effect of visibility of the stigma in this subtle type of prejudice.

Theoretical approaches to dehumanization consider civility to be an attribute of human uniqueness (HU). However, studies that explore the links between civility and humanness are scarce. More precisely, the present research tests whether there is a consistent relationship between civility and HU. Method and results: The first study (N = 192; M_age = 19.91; SD = 2.70; 69% women) shows that individuals infer more HU traits in the agents of civil behaviors compared to agents of other positive behaviors that are not related to civility. The second study (N = 328; M_age = 19.69; SD = 3.65; 77% women) reveals that uncivil and immoral behaviors displayed a similar pattern of inference of HU traits; however, moral behaviors were more associated with human nature than civil behaviors. Conclusions: Overall, results confirmed that civil behaviors facilitate the inference of humanness, specifically of HU traits, and that civil and moral behaviors are not equivalent in terms of the human inferences to which they lead.

Previous research shows that civility norms, such as morality norms, are necessary navigational charts to orient an individual in social life. However, there are no studies that establish the extent to which people consider civility norms as objective facts in a similar way to how many moral norms are considered. This research examines the perceived objectivity of civility norms in contrast to morality norms. The results show, firstly, that immoral norms are perceived to be significantly more objective than moral norms, but the opposite occurs with civility norms. Second, there is a high correlation between what participants consider objective and what they believe the rest of their community considers objective. However, this correlation was greater for immoral behaviors than for moral behaviors, and the opposite occurred for civility behaviors. Finally, participants estimated that the percentage of people in their group who engage in uncivil behaviors is higher than those who engage in immoral behaviors.

The aims of the present research are (1) to provide empirical evidence on animalization and, especially, mechanization in childhood and (2) to determine if outgroup stereotypical characteristics influence the dehumanization strategy chosen by children. In Study 1 (Study 1A: N = 77, M_age = 13.18; Study 1B: N = 140, M_age = 12.28), we investigated whether children associate machine-related words with the outgroup (Japanese) to a greater extent than with the ingroup (Spanish). In Study 2 (Study 2A: N = 118, M_age = 11.72; Study 2B: N = 142, M_age = 11.66), we examined whether the perception of competence (Japanese-high competence vs. Arabs-low competence) determines the dehumanization strategy used by children. The results show that children are capable of animalizing but also mechanizing and that the stereotypical characteristics of outgroups affect the form of dehumanization used.