↓ Skip to main content

Objectification and (De)Humanization

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: The Psychology of Humanness
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
The Psychology of Humanness
Chapter number 2
Book title
Objectification and (De)Humanization
Published in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-6958-2, 978-1-4614-6959-9
Authors

Haslam, Nick, Loughnan, Steve, Holland, Elise, Nick Haslam, Steve Loughnan, Elise Holland

Editors

Sarah J. Gervais

Abstract

This chapter explores the ways in which the concept of "humanness" illuminates a wide and fascinating variety of psychological phenomena. After introducing the concept--everyday understandings of what it is to be human--we present a model of the diverse ways in which humanness can be denied to people. According to this model people may be perceived as lacking uniquely human characteristics, and thus likened to animals, or as lacking human nature, and thus likened to inanimate objects. Both of these forms of dehumanization occur with varying degrees of subtlety, from the explicit uses of derogatory animal metaphors, to stereotypes that ascribe lesser humanness or simpler minds to particular groups, to nonconscious associations between certain humans and nonhumans. After reviewing research on dehumanization through the lens of our model we examine additional topics that the psychology of humanness clarifies, notably the perception of nonhuman animals and the objectification of women. Humanness emerges as a concept that runs an integrating thread through a variety of research literatures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 29%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 38%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,458,033
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#43
of 48 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,473
of 195,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 48 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one scored the same or higher as 5 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.