RESUMEN

Dehumanization has the potential to account for different abusive behaviors because it involves making negative judgments of others that make it easier to harm them. However, research has not resorted to this mechanism to analyze teen dating violence (TDV) perpetration, nor has it examined its association with the broader representations of others linked to attachment. The first objective of this study was to analyze whether dehumanization of one's partner (lesser perceived agency and experience) and attribution of evilness were associated with a higher level of TDV perpetration and specific attachment styles. The second objective was to develop a structural equation model (SEM) that allowed integration of the links between all these factors. Participants in this cross-sectional study were 1799 adolescents who completed a survey in high schools. The results showed that those who were classified as high in TDV perpetration did perceive lower agency, lower experience, and higher evilness in their partners. The dehumanized perception of one's partner was found to vary according to the attachment styles, with those highest in avoidance (dismissive and fearful) dehumanizing their partners the most. The SEM showed that dehumanization is related to avoidant and not to anxious attachment. It also pointed to the relevance of attribution of evilness in predicting TDV perpetration. The invariance of the model was tested across gender subsamples. These findings allow better understanding of how violence may arise in early relationships and where to focus intervention with adolescents.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The term evilness started to become popular in social psychology after the publication in 1999 of the special issue edited by Arthur G. Miller, «Perspectives on evil and violence». It is usually used to define behaviors that are extremely and strongly harmful. However, the concept is still imprecise and needs to be empirically delineated. This article attempts to answer the following questions. What is evilness? What is the difference between aggression and evilness? We conducted several studies with three goals: to analyze how laypersons and experts define evilness, to verify whether laypeople distinguish between different intensities of evilness, and to determine the dimensions that predict aggression and evilness. The results offer preliminary answers to the three questions (AU)

El término maldad comienza a difundirse en psicología social tras la publicación en 1999 del monográfico editado por Arthur G. Miller, «Perspectives on evil and violence». Usualmente se emplea para definir acciones extremas e intensamente dañinas, pero el concepto es impreciso y necesita ser delimitado empíricamente. Este artículo trata de responder a las preguntas ¿Qué es la maldad? ¿Qué diferencias existen entre la maldad y el concepto tradicional de agresión? Para ello, llevamos a cabo varios estudios con tres objetivos: analizar cómo legos y expertos definen la maldad, verificar si las personas legas diferencian niveles de intensidad de la maldad y determinar las dimensiones predictivas de la maldad y la agresión. Los resultados ofrecen respuestas preliminares a las tres cuestiones (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

El presente estudio analiza el papel de la semejanza intergrupal y la identidad en las relaciones intergrupales. Se trata de determinar la relación de la percepción de semejanza endo-exogrupal y la identidad endogrupal, con las actitudes hacia varios grupos de inmigrantes. Para ello, 400 estudiantes de Secundaria respondieron un cuestionario compuesto por tres escalas: identificación con el endogrupo, similitud intergrupal y una escala de distancia social. El análisis multidimensional de las escalas de similitud mostró que las personas atienden fundamentalmente a dos dimensiones: la similitud de estatus y la similitud actitudinal o cultural. Estas dimensiones permitieron organizar a los inmigrantes en tres categorías: grupos semejantes grupos diferentes de alto estatus y grupos diferentes de bajo estatus. Finalmente, el análisis de las respuestas a las escalas de distancia social indicó que es la semejanza intergrupal la que explica un porcentaje mayor de su varianza (AU)

This study examines the role played by intergroup similarity and identity in intergroup relations. The main purpose was to determine the relation between ingroup/outgroup perceived similarity and ingroup identification, with attitudes towards several immigrants groups. 400 secondary school students answered a questionnaire composed by three scales: ingroup identification, perceived intergroup similarity, and social distance. Multidimensional analysis of similarity scales showed that people basically employ two dimensions: status similarity and attitudinal similarity. These two dimensions allowed to determine three outgroup categories: similar groups, high status dissimilar groups and low status dissimilar group. Lastly, the analysis of the answer to social distances scales showed that similarity explains the greatest percentage of variance (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

El concepto psicosocial de estigma implica un modelo categorial mediante el cual se puedan clasificar y diferenciar los distintos grupos estigmatizados. Dicho modelo tiene, además, repercusiones sobre el proceso de estigmatización y sobre las conductas y reacciones hacia las personas estigmatizadas. Sin embargo, y pese a las distintas interpretaciones y significados que los estigmas han adquirido a lo largo de la historia y en diversos contextos sociales y culturales, hasta el momento, la exploración empírica acerca de la naturaleza categorial del estigma es nula. Utilizando una adaptación de la taxonomía propuesta por Goffman en 1963, el propósito de esta investigación es averiguar si los estigmas poseen una estructura categorial coherente en tres dimensiones independientes; física, psicológica o sociocultural, o si, dichos estigmas reflejan al mismo tiempo características de estos tres tipos. Con este objeto, se aplicó un cuestionario de estigmas a 169 estudiantes universitarios. Los resultados mostraron la flexibilidad intercategorial, así como la diferenciación intracategorial en los estigmas percibidos (AU)

The psychosocial concept of stigma implies a categorial model let to classify and to differentiate the different stigmatized groups. This has, in addition, effects on the process of stigmatization, and on the behavior and reactions to stigmatized people. However, and besides the different interpretations and meanings that stigmas have acquired along the history and in different social and cultural contexts, at present the empirical exploration about the categorial nature of stigma in non existent. The purpose of this research is, using an adaptation of the taxonomy proposed by Goffman in 1963, to assess if stigmas have a coherent categorial structure in three independent dimensions: physical, psychological or sociocultural; or if stigmas reflect at once characteristics of the three types. With this objetive, a questionnaire of stigmas was applied to 169 university students. Results show the among-categories flexibility, as well as the within-category differentiation of the perceived stigmas (AU)

Asunto(s)