Imagine that in city “U” there is a one-hour drive from the west side to the east side. Ten sixth-grade students live around a certain park on the west side of “U”. The nearest public primary school “V” is across the street from the park. Admittance to the nearest public primary school “V” is not based on achievement. Students do not have to repeat a subject and they are not expelled from the school if they fail subjects. Several of the sixth-grade students who live around the park are failing some of their subjects for some reason or other. Several will not qualify for admittance to high school. Among the students who are failing subjects, one is diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. That student is reassigned on the basis of the diagnosis to special school “C” on the east of town. That student (and that student only) loses the right to attend their nearest public primary school “V”. In PART ONE of my paper, I introduce the notion of “demeaning institution” in relation to an argument made by the philosopher Sophia Isako Wong. Wong argues that aborting fetuses on the basis of a diagnosis of Down syndrome in an ableist society is analogous to aborting fetuses on the basis of a diagnosis of female in a very sexist society. Wong argues that in both cases (1) difference from a norm and (2) the effects of social barriers to participation are (mistakenly) presumed by medical doctors to indicate inferiority. I do not argue for or against Wong’s argument that it is impermissible to abort fetuses on the basis of a diagnosis of Down syndrome. I am interested in a related, but different, notion: that it is impermissible for institutions (like the medical profession and the public primary school) to demean. In PART TWO of my paper, I argue that denying students with mild intellectual disability the right to attend their nearest public primary school is analogous to racial school segregation in the U.S. South prior to the enforcement of Brown v,. Board of Education (1954). If attendance at the nearest public primary school is not based on achievement (i.e. there is no achievement test for admittance, and students that fail subjects do not lose their place in the class), it is demeaning when the school denies a place in the regular class to students because of mild intellectual disability. In that case, I argue, the school is a “demeaning institution”.

<p>Syftet med experimentet var att genom en beroende mätning undersöka om förnedrings-tv hade någon effekt på individers upplevda och självrapporterade empatiförmåga och sinnestämning. Vidare undersöktes också om det förelåg genusskillnader i empatiförmåga och sinnesstämning beroende på vilket filmgenus försökspersonerna fått se förnedras eller lovordas i filmsekvensen.</p><p>Undersökningen utfördes på 185 högskolestudenter med hjälp av enkät. Försökspersonerna fördelades över vilken typ av film de har sett. Filmeskvenserna delades in i fyra olika, där två var av positiv karaktär med filmgenus man och kvinna där filmpersonerna fick positiv feedback av en jury. Två var av negativ karaktär, med filmgenus man och kvinna där filmpersonerna fick förnedrande feedback av en jury. Detta tillsammans med försökspersonernas genus ger totalt åtta grupper att undersöka.</p><p>Resultatet visade att den totala empatin ökade när försökspersonerna fick se en kvinna få förnedrande feedback men minskade i de tre andra filmsekvenserna. Vidare ökade sinnesstämningarna glädje, skam och ilska efter att försökspersonerna såg filmsekvenserna med förnedring. En ökning i förvåning oavsett filmtyp uppmättes.</p>

Syftet med experimentet var att genom en beroende mätning undersöka om förnedrings-tv hade någon effekt på individers upplevda och självrapporterade empatiförmåga och sinnestämning. Vidare undersöktes också om det förelåg genusskillnader i empatiförmåga och sinnesstämning beroende på vilket filmgenus försökspersonerna fått se förnedras eller lovordas i filmsekvensen. Undersökningen utfördes på 185 högskolestudenter med hjälp av enkät. Försökspersonerna fördelades över vilken typ av film de har sett. Filmeskvenserna delades in i fyra olika, där två var av positiv karaktär med filmgenus man och kvinna där filmpersonerna fick positiv feedback av en jury. Två var av negativ karaktär, med filmgenus man och kvinna där filmpersonerna fick förnedrande feedback av en jury. Detta tillsammans med försökspersonernas genus ger totalt åtta grupper att undersöka. Resultatet visade att den totala empatin ökade när försökspersonerna fick se en kvinna få förnedrande feedback men minskade i de tre andra filmsekvenserna. Vidare ökade sinnesstämningarna glädje, skam och ilska efter att försökspersonerna såg filmsekvenserna med förnedring. En ökning i förvåning oavsett filmtyp uppmättes.

Vicarious humiliation as a devaluing intergroup event is a rather common experience, which has the potential to adversely influence present and future intergroup relations. Based on an extensive literature review and previous research, we hypothesised that highly identified group members experience an intensified feeling of humiliation after witnessing an ingroup member being humiliated when compared to low identifiers (Hypothesis 1), that the role of visual exposure as situational determinant of humiliating events, the appraisals, and the emotional patterns elicited, differ between personally and vicariously humiliating events (Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3 and 4), and lastly, that vicarious humiliation regulated through emotional blends leads to behavioural intentions that influence future intergroup relations (Hypotheses 5a to 5c). Evidence for our hypotheses was exploratively and experimentally provided in six studies. Results implied that vicarious humiliation is a common experience, that visual exposure as situational determinant is more important for personally than vicariously humiliating events, and that humiliation is indeed a blended emotion (Study 1, N = 1048). Moreover, results showed that highly identified group member feel relatively stronger humiliated (Study 2, N = 175), that the appraisal and emotional patterns are related to identity processes (i.e., personal and vicarious humiliation) (Study 3, N = 74; Study 4, N = 359; Study 5 = 376), and that the feeling of humiliation and accompanying emotions regulate the relationship between vicariously humiliating events and the intentional responses such as avoidance, non-normative approach, dehumanisation and social exclusion (Study 6, N = 998). Overall, our results imply that vicarious humiliation as an emotional experience has the potential to provoke intergroup conflict. SUMMARY The present research studied a phenomenon that we are all familiar with – being humiliated. Unfortunately, this is an experience that is rather common as we might not only experience to be humiliated personally but also to be humiliated on behalf of others. It is this vicarious experience of humiliation that the present research aimed at studying. We firstly explored people’s experiences with and understandings of humiliation through a cross-sectional survey (Study 1). Results indicated that vicarious humiliation is indeed a rather common experience, that personally and vicariously humiliating events differ in terms of the situational determinants that characterise these events, and that the feeling of humiliation is experienced as a blended emotion. We furthermore tested experimentally the effects of ingroup identification, identity processes and the presence of an audience on the appraisal processes of and the emotional and motivational responses to vicarious humiliation. We found that people who highly identified with the group they share with the humiliated person, experienced stronger feelings of humiliation (Study 2), and that being personally humiliated and being vicariously humiliated resulted in different appraisal patterns, which consequently elicited the different emotional blends of humiliation with self-focused and other-focused emotions, respectively (Studies 3 to 5). We were, however, unable to provide evidence that the presence of an audience aggravated the appraisal processes and the feeling of humiliation (which we attributed to methodological limitations of our studies). That the emotional blends of humiliation regulate the behavioural intentions, that people engage in as a result of being vicariously humiliated, was demonstrated in our last study (Study 6). More specifically, we found that humiliation accompanied by self-focused emotions was related to intentions to avoid, to non-normatively approach, and/or to socially exclude the humiliator(s) through dehumanising them. It is this latter finding that provides evidence for both the role of the social context that might determine the appropriateness of certain behaviours (e.g., social norms) and for the proposed cycle of humiliation in that humiliated persons are often believed to retaliate by humiliating the humiliator(s) in return, which has the potential to provoke intergroup conflicts. / Psychology / D. Phil. (Psychology)