Humanness Is Not Always Positive: Automatic Associations between Incivilities and Human Symbols

  1. Betancor, Verónica
  2. Rodríguez-Pérez, Armando
  3. Delgado, Naira
  4. Chen-Xia, Xing Jie
  5. Rodríguez-Gómez, Laura
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Revista:
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

ISSN: 1660-4601

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 18

Número: 8

Páginas: 4353

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/IJERPH18084353 GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Resumen

Uncivil behavior involves an attack on social norms related to the protection of public property and respect for community life. However, at the same time, the low-frequency and relatively low-intensity damage caused by most of these behaviors could lead to incivilities being considered a typically human action. The purpose of this set of studies is to examine the automatic associations that people establish between humanness and both civic and uncivil behaviors. Across three studies, uncivil behaviors were more strongly associated with human pictures than animal pictures (study 1) and with human-related words than animal-related words (study 2). We replicated study 2 with uncivil behaviors that do not prime graphically human beings (study 3). Overall, our results showed that uncivil behaviors and civic behaviors were clearly associated with human concepts. Our findings have direct implications for the conceptualization of humanness and its denial.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 10.1522/cla.due.reg1
  • 10.1017/CBO9780511624995
  • 10.1002/ejsp.602
  • Asch, (1951), pp. 177
  • Sherif, (1936)
  • Lofland, (1998)
  • 10.14349/rlp.v45i3.1488
  • Forni, (2002)
  • 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00365.x
  • 10.1080/00420980600676196
  • 10.1111/1467-954X.00409
  • 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.005
  • 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.019
  • 10.3390/ijerph17093237
  • 10.2307/2096397
  • 10.1111/bjso.12246
  • 10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.672
  • 10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
  • 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09590-9
  • 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
  • 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
  • 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.937
  • 10.1177/0146167204271182
  • 10.1126/science.1134475
  • 10.1037/a0013748
  • 10.4473/TPM21.3.4
  • 10.1177/1948550610367686
  • 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.009
  • 10.1371/journal.pone.0061842
  • 10.1007/s13164-012-0112-5
  • 10.1080/1047840X.2012.686247
  • 10.1177/1754073911402388
  • 10.1111/cogs.12872
  • 10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.002
  • 10.1017/S0140525X00040024
  • 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.01.001
  • 10.1177/0956797614520714
  • 10.1002/ejsp.640
  • 10.1177/0032321719831983
  • James, (2011), Int. J. Nonprofit Law, 13, pp. 5
  • 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.014
  • 10.5465/amr.1991.4278958
  • 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.288
  • 10.1002/ejsp.831
  • 10.1080/10463280440000044
  • 10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.753
  • 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
  • 10.1177/0146167204271418
  • 10.1037/a0035028
  • 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
  • 10.3758/BF03196494
  • 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.04.003
  • 10.1108/02651330510624390
  • 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X
  • Vasiljevic, (2013), pp. 129
  • 10.1002/ab.21525
  • 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2006.tb00017.x
  • 10.1037/a0023245
  • 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001007
  • 10.1177/0022427892029003004
  • 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.12.002
  • 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.09.003
  • 10.1177/1557085111408278
  • 10.1080/21711976.2017.1304880
  • 10.1126/science.1161958
  • 10.1126/science.1162548