Four studies examine the social cognitive mechanisms through which sacred values produce social schisms, focusing on the role of metadehumanization. Using hypothetical scenarios, Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that violators of sacred values feel dehumanized by value holders and reciprocate this dehumanization. Using real sacred values, Studies 3 and 4 show similar effects. Study 3 further controls for the effects of mere disagreement and finds participants felt more dehumanized when family members disagreed with them in discussions of sacred values compared to preferences. Study 4 examined the sacralization of mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that the inflammatory effect of sacralization on hostility was in part explained by metadehumanization, leading to greater reciprocal dehumanization, thus fueling conflict. In conclusion, results suggest metadehumanization may underlie the often explosive nature of sacred conflict.
AmesD. R.MasonM. F. (2015). Tandem anchoring: Informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000016
2.
AndersonJ.KocY. (2015). Exploring patterns of explicit and implicit anti-gay attitudes in Muslims and atheists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2126
AtranS.HenrichJ. (2010). The evolution of religion: How cognitive by-products, adaptive learning heuristics, ritual displays, and group competition generate deep commitments to prosocial religions. Biological Theory, 5, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00018
7.
AtranS.SheikhH.GomezA. (2014). Devoted actors sacrifice for close comrades and sacred cause. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111, 17702–17703. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420474111
BastianB.HaslamN. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
BrewerM. B.RoccasS. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. In SedikidesC.BrewerM. B. (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 219–237). Psychology Press.
13.
BruneauE.HameiriB.Moore-BergS. L.KteilyN. (2020). Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220949004
14.
CarlsonD. S.KacmarK. M.ThompsonM. J.AndrewsM. C. (2019). Looking good and doing good: Family to work spillover through impression management. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2018-0162
15.
DehghaniM.AtranS.IlievR.SachdevaS.MedinD.GingesJ. (2010). Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 540–546. http://journal.sjdm.org/10/101203/jdm101203.pdf
16.
DehghaniM.IlievR.AtranS.GingesJ.MedinD. (2009). Emerging sacred values: The Iranian nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 990–993. https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00505191
17.
DodgeK. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129603
18.
DodgeK. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060391
19.
DodgeK. A.PriceJ. M.BachorowskiJ. A.NewmanJ. P. (1990). Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.99.4.385
20.
DuranK. (1993). Homosexuality and Islam. In SwidlerA. (Ed.), Homosexuality and world religions (pp. 181–197). Trinity Press International.
21.
DurkheimE. (1965). The elementary forms of religious life (SwainJ. W., Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912). https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.27
22.
EppsJ.KendallP. C. (1995). Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229692
23.
FincherK. M.TetlockP. E. (2016). Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000132
24.
FiskeA. P.TetlockP. E. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology, 18, 255–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00058
25.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
26.
GingesJ. (1997). Deterring the terrorist: A psychological evaluation of different strategies for deterring terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9, 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559708427394
GingesJ.AtranS. (2011). War as a moral imperative (not just practical politics by other means). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2930–2938. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2384
29.
GingesJ.AtranS. (2014). Sacred values and cultural conflict. In GelfandM. J.ChiuC.-Y.HongY.-Y. (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (pp. 273–301). Oxford University Press.
30.
GingesJ.AtranS.MedinD.ShikakiK. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 7357–7360. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701768104
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 11–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13091-001
33.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
34.
HodsonG.KteilyN.HoffarthM. (2014). Of filthy pigs and subhuman mongrels: Dehumanization, disgust, and intergroup prejudice. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 267–284. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.3
35.
JassinK.SheikhH.ObeidN.ArgoN.GingesJ. (2013). Negotiating cultural conflicts over sacred values. In SycaraK.GelfandM.AbbeA. (Eds.), Models for intercultural collaboration and negotiation (pp. 133–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5574-1_6
36.
KteilyN.BruneauE. (2017). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334
37.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
38.
LaingR. D.PhillipsonH.LeeA. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. Springer.
39.
LandryA. P.IhmE.SchoolerJ. W. (2022). Hated but still human: Metadehumanization leads to greater hostility than metaprejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220979035
40.
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2021). Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376, Article 20200143. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0143
41.
LeidnerB.CastanoE.GingesJ. (2013). Dehumanization, retributive and restorative justice, and aggressive versus diplomatic intergroup conflict resolution strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472208
42.
MalinowskiB. (1920). 51. Kula; the circulating exchange of valuables in the archipelagoes of Eastern New Guinea. Man, 20, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/2840430
43.
McGrawA. P.SchwartzJ.TetlockP. (2012). From the commercial to the communal: Reframing taboo trade-offs in religious and pharmaceutical marketing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 157–173, https://doi.org/10.1086/662070
44.
McGrawA. P.TetlockP. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_2
45.
McGrawA. P.TetlockP. E.KristelO. V. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/376805
46.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22, 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
47.
Moore-BergS. L.Ankori-KarlinskyL. O.HameiriB.BruneauE. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117, 14864–14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117
48.
ObaidiM.ThomsenL.BerghR. (2018). “They think we are a threat to their culture”: Meta-cultural threat fuels willingness and endorsement of extremist violence against the cultural outgroup. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 12, a647. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3102
49.
PavetichM.StathiS. (2021). Investigating antecedents of Islamophobia: The role of perceived control over terrorism, threat, meta-dehumanization, and dehumanization. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2512
50.
RazJ. (1986). Right-based moralities. In FriedmanM.MayL.ParsonsK.StiffJ. (Eds.), Rights and reason (pp. 177–196). Springer, Dordrecht.
51.
RozinP.WolfS. (2008). Attachment to land: The case of the land of Israel for American and Israeli Jews and the role of contagion. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 325–334. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/567/
52.
SachdevaS.MedinD. (2009). Group identity salience in sacred value based cultural conflict: An examination of the Hindu-Muslim identities in the Kashmir and Babri mosque issues. In Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 3111–3114.
53.
SainzM.MartínezR.MoyaM.Rodríguez-BailónR.VaesJ. (2021). Lacking socio-economic status reduces subjective well-being through perceptions of meta-dehumanization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60, 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12412
54.
SheikhH.GingesJ.AtranS. (2013). Sacred values in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Resistance to social influence, temporal discounting, and exit strategies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1299(1), 11–24.
55.
StathiS.PavetichM.Di BernardoG. A.CadamuroA.CoccoV. M.VezzaliL. (2020). Intergroup fears and concerns among minority and majority groups: Implications for contact and attitudes. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3), 1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22322
56.
StruchN.SchwartzS. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.364
57.
SwannW. B.Jr.GómezA.SeyleD. C.MoralesJ.HuiciC. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013668
58.
TetlockP. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451
TetlockP. E.KristelO. V.ElsonS. B.GreenM. C.LernerJ. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853
61.
TetlockP. E.MellersB. A.ScoblicJ. P. (2017a). Bringing probability judgments into policy debates via forecasting tournaments. Science, 355, 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3147
62.
TetlockP. E.MellersB. A.ScoblicJ. P. (2017b). Sacred versus pseudo-sacred values: How people cope with taboo trade-offs. American Economic Review, 107, 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171110
63.
TetlockP. E.PetersonR. S.LernerJ. S. (1996). Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM.P. (Eds.), The psychology of values: The ontario symposium, (Vol. 8, pp. 25–51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
64.
VaesJ.BastianB. (2021). Tethered humanity: Humanizing self and others in response to interpersonal harm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2744
65.
VikiG. T.OsgoodD.PhillipsS. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006
66.
VorauerJ. D.MainK. J.O’ConnellG. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917
67.
WilliamsG. H. (2013). The sacred condominium. In The morality of abortion (pp. 146–171). Harvard University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
