Although the act of dehumanizing an outgroup is a pervasive and potent intergroup process that drives discrimination and conflict, no formal research has examined the consequences of being dehumanized by an outgroup-that is, "metadehumanization." Across 10 studies (N = 3,440) involving several real-world conflicts spanning 3 continents, we provide the first empirical evidence that metadehumanization (a) plays a central role in outgroup aggression that is (b) mediated by outgroup dehumanization, and (c) distinct from metaprejudice. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate experimentally that Americans who learn that Arabs (Study 1a) or Muslims (Study 1b) blatantly dehumanize Americans are more likely to dehumanize that outgroup in return; by contrast, experimentally increasing outgroup dehumanization did not increase metadehumanization (Study 1c). Using correlational data, Study 2 documents indirect effects of metadehumanization on Americans' support for aggressive policies toward Arabs (e.g., torture) via Arab dehumanization. In the context of Hungarians and ethnic minority Roma, Study 3 shows that the pathway for Hungarians from metadehumanization to aggression through outgroup dehumanization holds controlling for outgroup prejudice. Study 4 examines Israelis' metaperceptions with respect to Palestinians, showing that: (a) feeling dehumanized (i.e., metadehumanization) is distinct from feeling disliked (i.e., metaprejudice), and (b) metadehumanization uniquely influences aggression through outgroup dehumanization, controlling for metaprejudice. Studies 5a and 5b explore Americans' metaperceptions regarding ISIS and Iran. We document a dehumanization-specific pathway from metadehumanization to aggressive attitudes and behavior that is distinct from the path from metaprejudice through prejudice to aggression. In Study 6, American participants learning that Muslims humanize Americans (i.e., metahumanization) humanize Muslims in turn. Finally, Study 7 experimentally contrasts metadehumanization and metahumanization primes, and shows that resulting differences in outgroup dehumanization are mediated by (a) perceived identity threat, and (b) a general desire to reciprocate the outgroup's perceptions of the ingroup. In summary, our research outlines how and why metadehumanization contributes to cycles of ongoing violence and animosity, providing direction for future research and policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

/pdf/they-see-us-as-less-than-human-metadehumanization-predicts-3gf1n7iqdw.pdf

They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.

To what extent do migrants carry their culture with them, and to what extent do they acquire the culture of their new home? The answer not only has important political implications; it also helps u...

/pdf/muslim-integration-into-western-cultures-between-origins-and-4vx91oo4et.pdf

Muslim Integration into Western Cultures: Between Origins and Destinations

The idea that people inevitably act in accordance with their self-interest on the basis of a calculation of costs and benefits does not constitute an adequate framework for understanding political acts of violence and self-sacrifice. Recent research suggests that a better understanding is needed of how sacred values and notions of self and group identity lead people to act in terms of principles rather than prospects when the two come into conflict. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to better understand how sacred causes and moral imperatives diffuse through a population and motivate some (usually small) segment of it to commit violent actions. The challenge to psychology is to adopt an interdisciplinary focus drawing on a range of research methods and to become bolder in its choices of study populations if it is to be relevant to real-world problems.

Psychology out of the laboratory: the challenge of violent extremism.

The battle for public opinion in the Islamic world is an ongoing priority for U.S. diplomacy. The current debate over why many Muslims hold anti-American views revolves around whether they dislike fundamental aspects of American culture and government, or what Americans do in international affairs. We argue, instead, that Muslim anti-Americanism is predominantly a domestic, elite-led phenomenon that intensifies when there is greater competition between Islamist and secular-nationalist political factions within a country. Although more observant Muslims tend to be more anti-American, paradoxically the most anti-American countries are those in which Muslim populations are less religious overall, and thus more divided on the religious–secular issue dimension. We provide case study evidence consistent with this explanation, as well as a multilevel statistical analysis of public opinion data from nearly 13,000 Muslim respondents in 21 countries.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/B51B3B740F267EC28E3218CE3ECD1972/S0003055412000135a.pdf/div-class-title-elite-competition-religiosity-and-anti-americanism-in-the-islamic-world-div.pdf

Elite Competition, Religiosity, and Anti-Americanism in the Islamic World

Indonesia's Islamic organizations sustain the country's thriving civil society, democracy, and reputation for tolerance amid diversity. Yet scholars poorly understand how these organizations envision the accommodation of religious difference. What does tolerance mean to the world's largest Islamic organizations? What are the implications for democracy in Indonesia and the broader Muslim world? Jeremy Menchik argues that answering these questions requires decoupling tolerance from liberalism and investigating the historical and political conditions that engender democratic values. Drawing on archival documents, ethnographic observation, comparative political theory, and an original survey, Islam and Democracy in Indonesia demonstrates that Indonesia's Muslim leaders favor a democracy in which individual rights and group-differentiated rights converge within a system of legal pluralism, a vision at odds with American-style secular government but common in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.

Islam and Democracy in Indonesia: Tolerance without Liberalism

The religion of Islam and the mainstream Muslim majority have been conflated with the beliefs and actions of an extremist minority. The result was reflected in a USA Today/Gallup Poll which found substantial minorities of Americans admitting to negative feelings or prejudice against Muslims.The vital missing piece among the many voices weighing in on this question is the actual views of Muslim publics.Who Speaks for Islam? is about this silenced majority. It is the product of a mammoth research study undertaken over six years by the Gallup Organization. Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long face to face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations. In totality we surveyed a sample representing over 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done.

Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

Dr. Esposito is University Professor of Religion & International Affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Ms. Mogahed is a Gallup strategic analyst and executive director of Gallup Muslim Studies. Their forthcoming book, “Who Speaks for Islam? Listening to the Voices of a Billion Muslims,” is scheduled for publication in 2007.

Battle for Muslims' Hearts and Minds: The Road Not (Yet) Taken

At the heart of the moving puzzle the world faces over the next quarter century are the diverse Muslim populations, collectively known as the "Global Muslim Community." Spanning the globe and speaking nearly every language, they are united by one faith Islam. Collectively, they make up one-fifth of the world's population and sit on 75 percent of its oil wealth. Understanding the emerging trends of these societies is perhaps the world's leading strategic imperative. But who will speak for Islam in the future on democracy, the role of women, or violence? Over six years ending in 2007, the Gallup organization undertook more than 50,000 interviews (representative of the 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations with majority or significant Muslim populations) in an effort to explore current trends and examine the future. The results, reflective of more than 90 percent of the world's Muslim community, are the end product of the most comprehensive survey of its kind ever conducted; they defy conventional wisdom and the inevitability of a global conflict even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Dealing a blow to the foundations of the "clash of civilizations" theory, our data shows a strong Muslim affinity for democratic values. Far from hating Americans for their freedom, Muslims around the world describe and admire the Western tradition of democratic governance, while seeing their faith as a source of progress and balance. Allowed the political space, leaders drawing both on democracy and Islam's rich tradition will overshadow secular liberals and conservative theocrats as the leaders of tomorrow. These Muslim democrats will appeal to Islam's self-image of justice to argue for minority rights, gender justice, and the rule of law. The focus will be heavily on economic development and job creation through free trade and entrepreneurship. This evolving future will find women at the forefront. Women comprise the majority of university students in several countries, and the percentage of women in Iran, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates (uae), and Egypt that attends university is on a par with that of Western Europe and South Korea. These women tell us that they expect their full rights and see their religion as essential to progress. Instead of a misogynistic corpus of ossified medieval edicts, Muslim women see their sacred law as a vibrant work in progress. They associate shariah compliance with "justice for women,"

Dalia Mogahed

Papers

Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

Battle for Muslims' Hearts and Minds: The Road Not (Yet) Taken

Who Will Speak for Islam