Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Perceived Deservingness in the Toleration of Human Rights Violations

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on evidence that people have a strong need to see that individuals get what they deserve, we reasoned that people will tolerate a human rights violation to the extent that they believe the target of the violation deserves severe treatment. Thus, we expected that variables that influence the perceived deservingness of a target (i.e., “contextual cues” to deservingness) should influence toleration of a violation of the target’s rights, mediated by perceptions of the target’s deservingness. We also expected that the effect of a contextual cue to targets’ deservingness on toleration should occur even for people who support the violated right in the abstract. Across two studies, using student versus community samples, we measured participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment. We then presented participants with scenarios about a target who was tortured (a violation of the right to humane treatment), and manipulated a contextual cue to the targets’ deservingness for severe treatment—the moral reprehensibility of the targets’ past behavior. Participants tolerated a target’s torture more if he had engaged in highly morally reprehensible (vs. less reprehensible) behavior and, thus, was perceived to deserve more severe treatment. Participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment did not moderate the effect of moral reprehensibility on toleration. Our findings highlight the importance of perceived deservingness in the toleration of human rights violations and have implications for reducing such toleration. Our research also extends literature on deservingness to an important global issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the relevance of the attitude strength literature.

  2. We tested whether right-wing orientation (RWA and SDO in Study 1; SDO, conservatism, and political party affiliation in Study 2) moderated the effect of moral reprehensibility on toleration. Right-wing orientation was not a moderator, although greater right-wing orientation for each indicator was associated with greater toleration (all ps ≤ 0.05), similar to previous findings (e.g., Larsson, Björklund, & Bäckström, 2012; Mayer & Armor, 2012; McFarland & Mathews, 2005).

  3. The correlation matrices for Studies 1 and 2 do not include abstract support for universal human rights in general because this variable showed extreme deviation from normality.

  4. Although there was no evidence for an interaction between abstract support for humane treatment and the moral reprehensibility manipulation, we tested the simple effects of moral reprehensibility on toleration at ±1SD from the mean of abstract support. Moral reprehensibility predicted toleration in both cases: at one standard deviation above the mean for abstract support, t(220) = 4.20, p < 0.001; at one standard deviation below the mean, t(220) = 4.23, p < 0.001.

  5. Correlations involving the exploratory variable of dehumanization are in Online Resource 1.

  6. Although there was no evidence for an interaction between abstract support for humane treatment and moral reprehensibility, as in Study 1, we tested the simple effects of moral reprehensibility on toleration at ±1SD from the mean of abstract support. The high versus low reprehensibility comparison predicted toleration in both cases: at one standard deviation above the mean for abstract support, t(160) = −2.63, p = 0.01; at one standard deviation below the mean, t(160) = −2.71, p = 0.01. The high reprehensibility versus no information comparison predicted toleration in neither case: at one standard deviation above the mean for abstract support, t(160) = −0.78, p = 0.44; at one standard deviation below the mean, t(160) = −1.22, p = 0.23. Thus, the simple effects are similar to the effect for the moral reprehensibility comparisons in the initial ANOVA.

  7. Although we were interested in the high versus low reprehensibility comparison merely as a control variable in these analyses, we note here that similar findings occurred for the high versus low reprehensibility comparison as for the high reprehensibility versus no information comparison.

References

  • Abrams, D., Houston, D. M., Van de Vyver, J., & Vasiljevic, M. (2015). Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21, 28–46. doi:10.1037/pac0000084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335–343. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarianism specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7, 21–34. doi:10.1080/15534510.2011.640199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassili, J. N. (2008). Attitude strength. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 237–260). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299. doi:10.1038/nature01963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21, 119–137. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K., & Sood, A. (2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 191–196. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L. (1979). On the distinction between individual deserving and distributive justice. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 9, 167–185. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1979.tb00422.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–286). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, C. S., Eidleman, S., Skitka, L. J., & Morgan, G. S. (2009). Status quo framing increases support for torture. Social Influence, 4, 1–10. doi:10.1080/15534510802124397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowson, H. M. (2007). Authoritarianism, perceived threat, and human rights attitudes in U.S. law students: A brief look. Individual Differences Research, 5, 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowson, H. M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as mediators of worldview beliefs on attitudes related to the war on terror. Social Psychology, 40, 93–103. doi:10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123, 2–22. doi:10.1037/a0039802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W. (1981). The development of justice and self-interest during childhood. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change (pp. 57–72). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. (2009). Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism–conservatism–traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685–715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice: Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1236. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. (2001). Commonsense justice: Jurors’ notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. J., Liss, M. B., & Moran, V. R. (1997). Equal or proportional justice for accessories? Children’s pearls of proportionate wisdom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 229–244. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90037-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L. (2011). The psychology of deservingness and acceptance of human rights. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 407–428). New York: Springer. doi:10.1177/01461672002611004.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S. (1999). Justice and deservingness judgments—refuting the interchangeability assumption. New Ideas in Psychology, 17, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1279–1292. doi:10.1177/0146167299258009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (2007). Erroneous assumptions: Popular belief in the effectiveness of torture interrogation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 429–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system—justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C., Kenny, D., & McClelland, G. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subjects designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 202–213. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, M. R., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2012). Right wing authoritarianism is a risk factor of torture-like abuse, but so is social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 927–929. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, P. (2014). War and torture as “just deserts”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 47–70. doi:10.1093/poq/nft081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, G. T., & Lerner, M. J. (1974). Deserving, the “personal contract”, and altruistic behavior by children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 551–556. doi:10.1037/h0036207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, I., & McCauley, C. (2011). Explaining support for violating outgroup human rights in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: The role of attitudes toward general principles of human rights, trust in the outgroup, religiosity and intergroup contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 889–903. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00740.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J. D., & Armor, D. J. (2012). Support for torture over time: Interrogating the American public about coercive tactics. The Social Science Journal, 49, 439–446. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2012.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, S., & Mathews, M. (2005). Who cares about human rights? Political Psychology, 26, 365–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00422.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793–811. doi:10.1002/ejsp.184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & McCann, C. D. (1979). Children’s reactions to the perpetrators and victims of injustices. Child Development, 50, 861–868. doi:10.2307/1128955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, B. H. (2001). Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 217–240). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam, D., & Heuer, L. (2011). Procedural fairness evaluations in interrogations. In B. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: APA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., & Carlsmith, K. (2012). Aggressive interrogation and retributive justice: A proposed psychological model. In J. Hanson & J. Jost (Eds.), Ideology, psychology, and law (pp. 574–604). New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737512.003.0022.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Staerklé, C., & Clémence, A. (2004). Why people are committed to human rights and still tolerate their violation: A contextual analysis of the principle-application gap. Social Justice Research, 17, 389–406. doi:10.1007/s11211-004-2058-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2008). To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1024–1051. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 595–629). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2014). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

  • Viki, G., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 325–328. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176. doi:10.1037/h0033967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Santiago Hoyos, Emily Thomas, and Ash Gibson for help with data collection, and Michael Busseri for comments on previous drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Caroline E. Drolet & Carolyn L. Hafer

  2. Department of Psychology, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY, 10027-6598, USA

    Larry Heuer

Authors
  1. Caroline E. Drolet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolyn L. Hafer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larry Heuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline E. Drolet.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 46 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drolet, C.E., Hafer, C.L. & Heuer, L. The Role of Perceived Deservingness in the Toleration of Human Rights Violations. Soc Just Res 29, 429–455 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0273-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0273-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation