Draft:Meta-humanization
WP:NOR: It isn't clear what the conflict of interest is (e.g. Lamiart, are you a study author, or in particular, Islam Borinca? Is it another kind of relation?
Submission declined on 3 August 2026 by RustyOldShip (talk). Notability: While it might be notable in the future, it has not been demonstrated notable yet. It seems to me the term meta-humanisation only appears in papers published by a small group of authors.
WP:NOR: It isn't clear what the conflict of interest is (e.g. Lamiart, are you a study author, or in particular, Islam Borinca? Is it another kind of relation? Citing a source you wrote IS allowed, under some conditions, the fact the article may rely on them could be seen as self-promotion.) It might also be a case of WP:SOAPBOX. It is also a problem to cite primary sources only, see WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are helpful. Meta-dehumanisation seems like a very related topic, and possibly the more notable one, but has no Wikipedia article (nor any mention outside of this page, as far as I can see). I would suggest, that if there are more sources on meta-dehumanisation (which are independent, and sufficient to show notability), it and meta-humanisation might be able to share an article or perhaps a brief mention in the article on dehumanisation.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
Comment: In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article. Lamiart (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Meta-humanization is a concept in social psychology and intergroup relations referring to the belief that an outgroup perceives one's ingroup as fully human. It is closely related to, but distinct from, meta-dehumanization, which refers to the belief that an outgroup sees one's ingroup as less than fully human.
Research on meta-humanization examines whether believing that another group recognizes one's group as fully human can improve intergroup attitudes, reduce dehumanization, and support reconciliation. In experiments conducted in Kosovo and North Macedonia, learning that an outgroup humanizes the ingroup increased positive reactions to prosocial cross-group behavior, willingness to accept outgroup help, and willingness for future intergroup contact.[1]
Further studies in post-conflict Kosovo found that meta-humanization can increase conciliatory attitudes, including support for the outgroup, openness to future contact, and feelings of peace, partly through reduced blatant dehumanization. However, these effects did not consistently extend to support for intergroup negotiation.[2]
Meta-humanization has also been studied in relation to war-related memories. Research in postwar Kosovo found that meta-humanization improved conciliatory attitudes partly by reducing outgroup dehumanization, although its effects were weaker among people with stronger disturbing war-related memories.[3]
Other research has examined meta-humanization in Muslim–non-Muslim relations. Across studies in Canada and the United Kingdom, meta-humanization reduced prejudice through increased outgroup humanization, including under conditions of high perceived intergroup threat.[4]
See also
References
- ^ Borinca, Islam; Tropp, Linda R.; Ofosu, Nana (2021). "Meta-humanization enhances positive reactions to prosocial cross-group interaction". British Journal of Social Psychology. 60 (3): 1051–1074. doi:10.1111/bjso.12435. PMID 33644887.
- ^ Borinca, Islam; Van Assche, Jasper; Koc, Yasin (2024). "How meta-humanization leads to conciliatory attitudes but not intergroup negotiation: The mediating roles of attribution of secondary emotions and blatant dehumanization". Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology. 7 100198. Bibcode:2024CRESP...700198B. doi:10.1016/j.cresp.2024.100198.
- ^ Borinca, Islam; Stathi, Sofia; Gkinopoulos, Theofilos (2025). "Ameliorating War's Shadows: The Role of War-related Memories and Meta-humanization on Intergroup Reconciliation". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 52 (8): 2418–2435. doi:10.1177/01461672251338559. PMC 13310280. PMID 40396605.
- ^ Pavetich, Melissa; Stathi, Sofia (2021). "Meta-humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120 (3): 651–671. doi:10.1037/pspi0000259. PMID 32700957.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
- provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
- are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
- are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.