Human and Global Identities

Different Prototypical Meanings of All‐Inclusive Identities

Bibliographic Data

ID6337124
AuthorsMariela Carmona (0000-0001-5994-9171, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE‐IUL) Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social Lisboa Portugal, corresponding author), Denis Sindic (0000-0002-3986-5349, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE‐IUL) Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social Lisboa Portugal), Rita Guerra (0000-0003-3184-5164, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE‐IUL) Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social Lisboa Portugal), Joep Hofhuis (0000-0001-7531-8644, Erasmus Research Center for Media, Communication, and Culture (ERMeCC) Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands)
Year2020
Volume41
Issue5
Pages961-978
Publication date2020-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0162-895X • E-ISSN: 1467-9221
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/pops.12659
OpenAlexW3012257674
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited39

The impact of identities encompassing all human beings (e.g., human and/or global identities) on intergroup relations is complex, with studies showing mostly positive (e.g., less dehumanization), but also negative (e.g., deflected responsibility for harm behavior), effects. However, different labels and measures have been used to examine the effects of these all‐inclusive superordinate identities, without a systematic empirical examination of the extent to which they overlap or differ in their sociopsychological prototypical content. This study examined whether different labels activate the same contents in laypeople's conceptualization. Two hundred and forty‐eight participants openly described one of six labels: “All humans everywhere”; “People all over the world”; “People from different countries around the world”; “Global citizens”; “Citizens of the world”; and “Members of world community.” Results from quantitative content analyses showed that the different labels activated different thematic attributes, representing differences in their core prototypical meaning. We propose that a general distinction should be made between labels that define membership based on human attributes (e.g., biological attributes) and those that evoke attributes characteristic of membership in a global political community (e.g., attitudinal attributes), as their effect on intergroup relations may vary accordingly

Conceptualization · Dehumanization · Harm · Linguistics · Meaning (existential · Sociology · Superordinate goals · Cultural Differences and Values · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access