Sammenlign metoder

	Blatant Dehumanization Scale	Support for Political Violence Measure
Fagfelt	Politisk psykologi	Politisk psykologi
Familie	Latent structure	Latent structure
Opprinnelsesår	2015	2022
Opphavsperson	Nour Kteily, Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz & Sarah Cotterill	Nathan Kalmoe & Lilliana Mason
Type	Graphic-slider measure of dehumanization	Attitude scale for endorsement of partisan violence
Opprinnelig kilde	Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901-931.	Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226820286
Alias	Ascent of Man Scale, Ascent Dehumanization Measure, Kteily-Bruneau Dehumanization Scale, Blatant Animalistic Dehumanization Measure	Lethal Partisanship Scale, Support for Partisan Violence Battery, Kalmoe-Mason Political Violence Items, Radical Partisanship Measure
Relaterte	3	3
Sammendrag	The Blatant Dehumanization Scale, also called the Ascent of Man measure, captures the willingness to overtly deny full humanity to an out-group. Developed by Nour Kteily, Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill in 2015, it uses the iconic evolutionary image of a creature progressing from ape to upright human and asks respondents to rate, on a slider from zero to one hundred, how evolved different social groups are. The gap between how human respondents rate their own group and how human they rate an out-group is a strikingly direct, robust predictor of hostility, support for coercive policies, and aggression that goes beyond ordinary dislike.	This measure assesses citizens' willingness to endorse violence against political opponents, a key indicator of democratic fragility. Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason's research, synthesized in Radical American Partisanship (2022), maps a continuum of violent partisan hostility from wishing harm on the other side to endorsing lethal attacks, using representative surveys and embedded behavioral experiments. Because such attitudes are rare and the items are extreme, the measure has prompted vigorous methodological debate, exemplified by Westwood and colleagues' demonstration that inattentive responding and item design can substantially inflate apparent support, making bias correction central to credible estimates.