Monstrosity and dehumanization in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Project Summary: 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' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["dehumanization","monstrosity metaphor","polarization","political psychology","presidential campaigns"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Project Summary: 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' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
Project Summary: 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
dehumanization; monstrosity metaphor; polarization; political psychology; presidential campaigns