Article Awareness of Intergroup Help Can Rehumanize the Out-Group Tamar Saguy 1 , Hanna Szekeres 1 , Rikki Nouri 1 , Amit Goldenberg 2 , Guy Doron 1 , John F. Dovidio 3 , Chaim Yunger 1 , and Eran Halperin 1 Abstract Dehumanizing the enemy is one of the most destructive elements of intergroup conflict. Past research demonstrated that awareness of harm that the in-group imposed on a specific out-group can increase out-group dehumanization as means of jus- tifying the harm. In this research, we examined whether the opposite process would occur when people become aware of help given to an adversary. We reasoned that the need to justify a good deed toward a persistent enemy can result in more human-like out-group attributions. In two experiments, Israeli-Jews read about their group either helping Palestinians or not. In Study 1, awareness of help provided by the in-group to the out-group resulted in greater out-group humanization. In Study 2, we further established that when a third party helped the out-group, the rehumanization effect was not obtained, suggesting that the phenomenon is of specific intergroup nature. Theoretical and applied implications for conflict resolution are discussed. Keywords intergroup help, dehumanization, rehumanization, intergroup conflict One of the most destructive features of intergroup conflict is group members’ tendency to perceive their enemy as less than human (Bar-Tal & Hammack, 2012; Castano, 2008; Haslam, 2006; Kelman, 1973; Staub, 1989). Dehumanization of the other is associated with a range of destructive consequences (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Goff, Eberhardt, Wil- liams, & Jackson, 2008; Turner, Layton, & Simons, 1975; Vaes, Paladino, Castelli, Leyens, & Giovanazzi, 2003) such as support for war (Jackson & Gaertner, 2010), support for war-related violence (Viki, Osgood, & Phillips, 2013), and sup- port for extreme policies and measures against one’s counter- part (Leidner, Castano, & Ginges, 2013; Maoz & McCauley, 2008). Although large amount of research has focused on the characteristics, emergence, and prevalence of dehumanization, little is known about potential ways to elicit the opposite pro- cess of rehumanization. Our goal in this study was to introduce and test a new avenue for eliciting such a positive change in perceptions of the out-group. In the context of intergroup conflict, dehumanization of the out-group is often seen as a motivated phenomenon, enabling to remove the burden of moral concerns that are likely to arise when one becomes aware of in-group–committed atrocities (Bandura, 2002; Kelman, 1973; Opotow, 1990). The idea underlining this notion is that peoples’ view of themselves as moral beings is threatened when confronted with misdeeds committed by the in-group against others. Such threat, which occurs by virtue of one’s group membership and sense of collective identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), needs to be miti- gated. As explained by Castano, such mitigation effectively occurs by denying the victimized group’s status as ‘‘fully fledged human beings’’ (Castano, 2008, p. 157). Dehumanized members of the other group no longer evoke the compassion and moral emotions that inhibit violence. Supporting this idea, several studies have documented a ten- dency to dehumanize targets of in-group harm across different intergroup contexts. For example, Castano and Giner-Sorolla (2006) have demonstrated this tendency among British partici- pants who learned about Britain harming Australian Aborigines and among White Americans who learned about Whites trans- gressing against Native Americans. Similarly, C ˇ ehajic ´ and col- leagues found, both in Chile and in Bosnia, that reminders of in-group responsibility for intergroup atrocities increased tendencies to dehumanize the victims (C ˇ ehajic ´, Brown, & Gonza ´lez, 2009). Thus, becoming aware that one’s in-group had harmed an out-group is sufficient to motivate dehumaniza- tion of the out-group by individuals not directly involved in the 1 The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Israel 2 Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA 3 Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA Corresponding Author: Tamar Saguy, The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel. Email: tamar.saguy@idc.ac.il Social Psychological and Personality Science 2015, Vol. 6(5) 551-558 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550615574748 spps.sagepub.com at Interdisciplinary Center for on June 1, 2015 spp.sagepub.com Downloaded from