ABSTRACT
Dehumanization has the potential to account for different abusive behaviors because it involves making negative judgments of others that make it easier to harm them. However, research has not resorted to this mechanism to analyze teen dating violence (TDV) perpetration, nor has it examined its association with the broader representations of others linked to attachment. The first objective of this study was to analyze whether dehumanization of one's partner (lesser perceived agency and experience) and attribution of evilness were associated with a higher level of TDV perpetration and specific attachment styles. The second objective was to develop a structural equation model (SEM) that allowed integration of the links between all these factors. Participants in this cross-sectional study were 1799 adolescents who completed a survey in high schools. The results showed that those who were classified as high in TDV perpetration did perceive lower agency, lower experience, and higher evilness in their partners. The dehumanized perception of one's partner was found to vary according to the attachment styles, with those highest in avoidance (dismissive and fearful) dehumanizing their partners the most. The SEM showed that dehumanization is related to avoidant and not to anxious attachment. It also pointed to the relevance of attribution of evilness in predicting TDV perpetration. The invariance of the model was tested across gender subsamples. These findings allow better understanding of how violence may arise in early relationships and where to focus intervention with adolescents.
Subject(s)
Adolescent Behavior , Intimate Partner Violence , Adolescent , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dehumanization , Humans , ViolenceABSTRACT
The term evilness started to become popular in social psychology after the publication in 1999 of the special issue edited by Arthur G. Miller, «Perspectives on evil and violence». It is usually used to define behaviors that are extremely and strongly harmful. However, the concept is still imprecise and needs to be empirically delineated. This article attempts to answer the following questions. What is evilness? What is the difference between aggression and evilness? We conducted several studies with three goals: to analyze how laypersons and experts define evilness, to verify whether laypeople distinguish between different intensities of evilness, and to determine the dimensions that predict aggression and evilness. The results offer preliminary answers to the three questions (AU)
El término maldad comienza a difundirse en psicología social tras la publicación en 1999 del monográfico editado por Arthur G. Miller, «Perspectives on evil and violence». Usualmente se emplea para definir acciones extremas e intensamente dañinas, pero el concepto es impreciso y necesita ser delimitado empíricamente. Este artículo trata de responder a las preguntas ¿Qué es la maldad? ¿Qué diferencias existen entre la maldad y el concepto tradicional de agresión? Para ello, llevamos a cabo varios estudios con tres objetivos: analizar cómo legos y expertos definen la maldad, verificar si las personas legas diferencian niveles de intensidad de la maldad y determinar las dimensiones predictivas de la maldad y la agresión. Los resultados ofrecen respuestas preliminares a las tres cuestiones (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Psychology, Social/methods , Psychology, Social/statistics & numerical data , Aggression/physiology , Aggression/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Psychology, Social/organization & administration , Psychology, Social/standards , Psychology, Social/trends , Aggression/classification , Vandalism , Logistic ModelsABSTRACT
El presente estudio analiza el papel de la semejanza intergrupal y la identidad en las relaciones intergrupales. Se trata de determinar la relación de la percepción de semejanza endo-exogrupal y la identidad endogrupal, con las actitudes hacia varios grupos de inmigrantes. Para ello, 400 estudiantes de Secundaria respondieron un cuestionario compuesto por tres escalas: identificación con el endogrupo, similitud intergrupal y una escala de distancia social. El análisis multidimensional de las escalas de similitud mostró que las personas atienden fundamentalmente a dos dimensiones: la similitud de estatus y la similitud actitudinal o cultural. Estas dimensiones permitieron organizar a los inmigrantes en tres categorías: grupos semejantes grupos diferentes de alto estatus y grupos diferentes de bajo estatus. Finalmente, el análisis de las respuestas a las escalas de distancia social indicó que es la semejanza intergrupal la que explica un porcentaje mayor de su varianza (AU)
This study examines the role played by intergroup similarity and identity in intergroup relations. The main purpose was to determine the relation between ingroup/outgroup perceived similarity and ingroup identification, with attitudes towards several immigrants groups. 400 secondary school students answered a questionnaire composed by three scales: ingroup identification, perceived intergroup similarity, and social distance. Multidimensional analysis of similarity scales showed that people basically employ two dimensions: status similarity and attitudinal similarity. These two dimensions allowed to determine three outgroup categories: similar groups, high status dissimilar groups and low status dissimilar group. Lastly, the analysis of the answer to social distances scales showed that similarity explains the greatest percentage of variance (AU)
