DOI: 10.5064/f6tb14tp
title: Monstrosity and dehumanization in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest

description: &lt;b&gt;Project Summary&lt;/b&gt;: In this article, I argue that monstrosity was used as a metaphor to convey the dangerous potential of the candidates and to challenge their moral standing. Monstrosity is also a mechanism for dehumanization – the “act of perceiving or treating people as if they are less than fully human” which involves “denials of humanness” to individuals and groups (Haslam and Stratemeyer, 2016, 25). Social psychologists generally take a quantitative approach to the study of dehumanization, while recognizing that dehumanization has qualitative variants – animalistic, mechanistic, subtle, and blatant (Haslam and Stratemeyer, 2016; Kteily et al 2015; Pacilli et al 2016). Using the data collected here, I explore how monstrous characterizations of the candidates map on to the quantitative measures of dehumanization employed by this literature and in my own research (Cassese 2017). The results highlight the external validity of these measurement approaches and their clear relevance for capturing the dehumanization of political groups and candidates.&lt;p/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Data Abstract&lt;/b&gt;: The text and images included in this collection were gathered on an ad hoc basis as examples of monstrosity and dehumanization in the discourse surrounding the 2016 Presidential race. They demonstrate the emergence of a “monster” narrative framework, which either characterized the candidates explicitly as monsters (e.g. “Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster”) or more implicitly as abnormal, deviant, and warped (e.g. an “abomination”). The data consist of political cartoons, memes, screenshots from television programs, as well as headlines and excerpts from mainstream news sources and political blogs. They also include comments from public officials, political advisors, journalists, and political analysts. Data collection began during the 2016 presidential primary race and concluded shortly after the inauguration. Preliminary observations about the data were published in The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage in an article called “Here are 3 insights into why some people call Trump a ‘monster’” (Cassese 2016).&lt;p/&gt;
 
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Works Cited&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p/&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;Cassese, Erin. 2016. “Here are 3 insights into why some people call Trump a ‘monster.’” &lt;i&gt;The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage&lt;/i&gt; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/31/here-are-3-insights-into-why-some-people-think-trump-is-a-monster] &lt;p/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cassese, Erin. 2017. “Dehumanization and Partisan Polarization in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race.” Manuscript under review.&lt;p/&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;Haslam, Nick, and Michelle Stratemeyer. 2016 “Recent Research on Dehumanization.” &lt;i&gt;Current Opinion in Psychology 11: 25-29.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;p/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kteily, Nour, Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill. 2015. “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization.” &lt;i&gt;Journal of Personality and Social Psychology&lt;/i&gt;, 109(5): 901-931. &lt;p/&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pacilli, Maria Giuseppina, Michele Roccato, Stefano Pagliaro, and Silvia Russo. 2016. “From Political Opponents to Enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup.” &lt;i&gt;Group Processes & Intergroup Relations&lt;/i&gt; 19(3): 360-373.&lt;p/&gt;
description: Update Notes for Version 2.0
Version 2.0 is a QDR-administered technical update. Files have been reprocessed to improve digital accessibility; the content of materials remains unaltered.