10.1177/0146167204271421 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Cortes et al. / FAMILIARITY AND INFRAHUMANIZATION Infrahumanization or Familiarity? Attribution of Uniquely Human Emotions to the Self, the Ingroup, and the Outgroup Brezo P. Cortes Catholic University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve Stéphanie Demoulin Catholic University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve and Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research Ramon T. Rodriguez Armando P. Rodriguez University of La Laguna Jacques-Philippe Leyens Catholic University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve People attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups. This effect is interpreted in terms of infrahumanization theory. Familiarity also could explain this differential attribution because secondary emotions are thought to be less visible and intense than primary ones. This alternative explanation to infrahumanization was tested in three studies. In Study 1, participants attributed, in a between-participants design, primary and secondary emotions to themselves, to their ingroup, or to an outgroup. In Study 2, participants answered for themselves and their ingroup or for themselves and an outgroup. In Study 3, participants made attributions to the ingroup or a series of outgroups varying in terms of familiarity. The data do not support an explanation in terms of familiarity. The discussion centers on conditions not conducting to infrahumanization. Keywords: infrahumanization; essentialism; familiarity; emotions There are differences between social groups. These differences are often quite visible, such as in the case of physical appearance, behavioral habits, and clothing. For instance, an Italian University professor will proba- bly be shorter, more exuberant, and more formally dressed than will a Dutch colleague. People spontane- ously need explanations for these differences. Stereo- types constitute a privileged kind of explanation (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001; Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994). Italians will be stereotyped as warm, artistic, and generous, whereas Dutch will be characterized as strong, organized, and informal. In addition to stereotypes, attributions of different essences to various groups are another way to explain differences between social groups (Demoulin, Leyens, & Yzerbyt, 2002; Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000, 2002; Hirschfeld, 1996; Rothbart & Taylor, 1992). The essence is the substratum that makes alike people from the same group and radi- cally differentiates them from individuals belonging to other groups. This essence can be biological (e.g., Medi- terranean vs. Nordic), religious (e.g., Muslim vs. Chris- tian), linguistic (e.g., Roman vs. Germanic or Anglo- Saxon roots), or cultural (e.g., individualist vs. collectiv- ist). Given prevalent ethnocentrism (Sumner, 1906), it is not surprising that most people react unconsciously as if their group had a better, more human essence than the 1 Authors’ Note: Research was supported by the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research, the Communauté française de Belgique for the Louvain-la-Neuve team (ARC 01/06-270), and by a DGICYT PB98-043 grant to the La Laguna team. We are grateful to Paula Niedenthal and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Please address correspondence to Jacques-Philippe Leyens, Catholic University of Louvain PSP/PSOR, 10 Place du Cardinal Mercier, 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium; e-mail: Jacques-Philippe.Leyens@ psp.ucl.ac.be. PSPB, Vol. 30 No. X, Month 2005 1- DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271421 © 2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.