Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug
Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as “the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds” (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states in victim...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
2018
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/118868 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-6519 |
| _version_ | 1811068973665484800 |
|---|---|
| author | Valdesolo, Piercarlo Graham, Jesse Rai, Tage Shakti |
| author2 | Sloan School of Management |
| author_facet | Sloan School of Management Valdesolo, Piercarlo Graham, Jesse Rai, Tage Shakti |
| author_sort | Valdesolo, Piercarlo |
| collection | MIT |
| description | Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as “the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds” (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states in victims generates apathy that enables harm for instrumental gain, while recognition of those same states may be required to harm victims to satisfy moral motives (2). Instead, the substance of Fincher et al.’s (1) critique is that we fail to investigate broader, vaguely defined dimensions of dehumanization that could conceivably be related to moral violence. However, we consider our conceptual specificity and tight operationalization of dehumanization to be a feature of our research, not a bug. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T08:03:41Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/118868 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T08:03:41Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1188682022-09-30T07:13:05Z Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug Valdesolo, Piercarlo Graham, Jesse Rai, Tage Shakti Sloan School of Management Rai, Tage Shakti Fincher et al. (1) argue that our conceptualization of dehumanization as “the failure to engage in social cognition of other human minds” (2) is too narrow. Importantly, Fincher et al. (1) do not dispute our actual findings. They agree that reduced perception of mental and emotional states in victims generates apathy that enables harm for instrumental gain, while recognition of those same states may be required to harm victims to satisfy moral motives (2). Instead, the substance of Fincher et al.’s (1) critique is that we fail to investigate broader, vaguely defined dimensions of dehumanization that could conceivably be related to moral violence. However, we consider our conceptual specificity and tight operationalization of dehumanization to be a feature of our research, not a bug. 2018-11-05T13:35:59Z 2018-11-05T13:35:59Z 2018-03 2018-10-12T16:45:38Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle 0027-8424 1091-6490 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/118868 Rai, Tage S., Piercarlo Valdesolo, and Jesse Graham. “Reply to Fincher et Al.: Conceptual Specificity in Dehumanization Research Is a Feature, Not a Bug.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 15 (March 22, 2018): E3331–E3332. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-6519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802004115 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use. application/pdf National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) PNAS |
| spellingShingle | Valdesolo, Piercarlo Graham, Jesse Rai, Tage Shakti Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title | Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title_full | Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title_fullStr | Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title_short | Reply to Fincher et al.: Conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature, not a bug |
| title_sort | reply to fincher et al conceptual specificity in dehumanization research is a feature not a bug |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/118868 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-6519 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT valdesolopiercarlo replytofincheretalconceptualspecificityindehumanizationresearchisafeaturenotabug AT grahamjesse replytofincheretalconceptualspecificityindehumanizationresearchisafeaturenotabug AT raitageshakti replytofincheretalconceptualspecificityindehumanizationresearchisafeaturenotabug |