Apes Unlike Us: Human-Ingroup Protection Against Encroaching Simianity in UK Newspapers

We often pigeonhole our surroundings into dualistic categories. This capacity to function as reductionists may help us problem-solve when pressed in terms of survival or reproduction. Alternatively, binary categories may be reflective of certain socioecological conditions, and thus social constructs. This study explores classifications of nonhuman primate taxonomy via the coding of human–primate boundary categorizations during 16 years of UK newspaper reporting (1995–2010) to explore whether societal concepts of simianity reflect sociopolitical events – in other words, cultural influence resulting in ingroup boundary enforcement, with less inclusionality under more turbulent scenarios. The results indicate that societal shakiness accounts for the minimization of “human” ingroups at the expense of other primates. Human–primate infrahumanization possibly reflects a cognitive adaptation towards outgroup-directed dichotomous thinking in stress states. That said, the fluidity of the results in the context of societal change also suggests cultural influence on categorical dichotomous sets often accepted as “natural.”