Distinguishing dignity: Offences targeting stigmatised or immutable attributes are discerned as dignity-violating

Dignity is central to how we treat each other. Whereas philosophical theories argue that violating someone’s dignity distinctively involves humiliation, it is unknown how people actually identify violations of dignity, casting doubt on whether dignity is a distinct value that can meaningfully guide action. Here, we propose a new hypothesis, where violations are recognised as dignity-related when they target attributes that are stigmatised and that victims plausibly and immutably hold. Participants (N = 277) performed a novel task; they rated a set of textual vignettes describing a ‘perpetrator’ making offensive remarks to a ‘victim’ on how well each offensive remark corresponds to a dignity violation as opposed to a respect violation. Before rating, participants were informed (across 3 within-subject conditions) whether the attribute targeted by the offence was immutable, improvable, or absent. After completing the main ratings, participants also reported how stigmatised the offence-targeted attributes are in their society. Our hypotheses, methods, and analyses were preregistered. Comparing across within-subject conditions, we found extreme evidence (BF > 100) for our hypothesis that the plausibility and immutability increase how much the violations relate to dignity. Using Bayesian general linear mixed models, we also found extreme evidence (BF > 100) for our hypothesis that perceptions of the offence-targeted attributes as stigmatised predict increases in dignity-relatedness. These findings are first to provide empirical anchors for a distinct ethics of dignity. Our implications include evidence-based actionable guidelines for treating people with dignity that can be used to promote ethical practice in organisations and service industries.