A Theory of a Human-Centered Social Cognitive Chain

Abstract

The absence of anthropology from cognitive science may be related to the fact that the Western-dominated cognitive approach is not human-centered. From an anthropological perspective, we propose a possible social cognitive model—the human-centered social cognitive chain. It is a theory of the human cognitive process that includes two phenomena— anthropomorphism and dehumanization; has two directions—upward and downward; involves two dimensions—morality and competence; and produces two results—cuteness and coolness. It is a way for humans to understand the whole world with themselves as starting point and end point, governing social cognition. The human-centered social cognitive chain involves gods, humans, animals, plants, artificial objects, pure objects, and even abstract concepts, on the basis of which upward and downward anthropomorphism and upward and downward dehumanization arise. The existing research on anthropomorphism and dehumanization is slightly biased in that it only emphasizes upward anthropomorphism and downward dehumanization. Theoretically, both anthropomorphism and dehumanization should be two-stage processes based on essentialism, but humans engaged in cognition tend to adopt a dimensional view that simplifies them. The morality-competence dichotomy reflects this tendency and results in the cognitive outcomes of cuteness, where morality is valued higher than competence and coolness, where competence is valued higher than morality. The human-centered social cognitive chain is the paradigm by which humans understand themselves, their culture, and the world.

Keywords:

• dehumanization
• anthropomorphism
• morality
• human nature
• mind perception
• artificial intelligence

Notes

1 Dedre Gentner, “Psychology in Cognitive Science: 1978-2038.”

2 Yu Feng, “What Is the Difference between Chinese and Western Thinking?”.

3 Beulah Amsterdam, “Mirror Self-Image Reactions before Age Two.”

4 Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz and John T. Cacioppo, “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism”; Xu Liying et al., “Anthropomorphism: From It to He.”

5 Mark J. Brandt and Christine Reyna, “The Chain of Being: A Hierarchy of Morality.”

6 Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz and John T. Cacioppo, “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism”; Xu Liying et al., “Anthropomorphism: From It to He.”

7 James H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments.

8 David L. Smith, Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others.

9 Harriet Over, “Seven Challenges for the Dehumanization Hypothesis.”

10 Nick Haslam and Steve Loughnan, “ Dehumanization and Infrahumanization.”

11 Heather M. Gray, Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, “Dimensions of Mind Perception.”

12 Nick Haslam, “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review.”

13 David L. Smith, “Dehumanization, Essentialism, and Moral Psychology.”

14 Susan T. Fiske, Amy J.C. Cuddy and Peter Glick, “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence.”

15 Ibid.

16 Carey K. Morewedge and Michael E. Clear, “Anthropomorphic God Concepts Engender Moral Judgment.”

17 Xu Liying et al., “Cuteness: Perception and Aftereffects”; Gergana Y. Nenkov and Maura L. Scott, “‘So Cute I Could Eat It Up’: Priming Effects of Cute Products on Indulgent Consumption.”

18 Caleb Warren and Margaret C. Campbell, “What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness.”

19 Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, “Moral Typecasting: Divergent Perceptions of Moral Agents and Moral Patients.”

20 Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, “To Escape Blame, Don’t Be a Hero—Be a Victim”; Adam Waytz et al., “Causes and Consequences of Mind Perception.”

21 Max E. Butterfield, Sarah E. Hill and Charles G. Lord, “Mangy Mutt or Furry Friend? Anthropomorphism Promotes Animal Welfare.”

22 Marina Puzakova, Hyokjin Kwak and Joseph Rocereto, “Pushing the Envelope of Brand and Personality: Antecedents and Moderators of Anthropomorphized Brands.”

23 Adam Waytz, Kelly Marie Hoffman and Sophie Trawalter, “A Superhumanization Bias in Whites’ Perceptions of Blacks.”

24 Yu Feng and Xu Liying, “The Moral Differential Circles: The Moral Structure of Chinese People.”