(De) humanization and trust in an asymmetric Muslim–Christian conflict: Heroes, Kafirs, and Satanas.
2019
- 33Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage33
- Abstract Views33
Article Description
Is there any empirical relation between intergroup (de)humanization and trust during asymmetric conflicts? We address this question using as a case in point a Muslim–Christian heated clash in southern Philippines. Our data corpus consists of newspaper articles and Facebook public posts. Text-mining analytical strategies include detecting the word trust and its derivatives, employing text-based principal component analysis to portray culture-embedded meanings of dehumanization, and running trust–humanization correlations. Our results suggest that an identical set of conflict utterances evokes a greater sense of dehumanization from the low-power group, while the high-power group remains relatively unperturbed. Further, the language of dehumanization occurs through negative religious images like the word kafir or unbeliever for Christians, while Muslims are dehumanized through the use of words like Satanas (Satan) and demonyo (demon). Finally, high trust toward one’s ingroup goes hand-in-hand with dehumanizing the enemy. Our research extends the study of trust and humanization beyond theoretical discussions and laboratory experiments. We see how psychological phenomena operate in actual conflict settings that are markedly unequal and religiously fueled. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know