Attribution of undesirable character traits, rather than trait-based dehumanization, predicts punishment decisions.

Previous work has reported that the extent to which participants dehumanized criminals by denying them uniquely human character traits such as refinement, rationality and morality predicted the severity of the punishment endorsed for them. We revisit this influential finding across six highly powered and pre-registered studies. First, we conceptually replicate the effect reported in previous work, demonstrating that our method is sensitive to detecting relationships between trait-based dehumanization and punishment should they occur. We then investigate whether the apparent relationship between trait-based dehumanization and punishment is driven by the desirability of the traits incorporated into the stimulus set, their perceived humanness, or both. To do this, we asked participants to rate the extent to which criminals possessed uniquely human traits that were either socially desirable (e.g. cultured and civilized) or socially undesirable (e.g. arrogant and bitter). Correlational and experimental evidence converge on the conclusion that apparent evidence for the relationship between trait-based dehumanization and punishment is better explained by the extent to which participants attribute socially desirable attributes to criminals rather than the extent to which they attribute uniquely human attributes. These studies cast doubt on the hypothesized causal relationship between trait-based dehumanization and harm, at least in this context.