DESERVINGNESS AND TOLERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS1

Dehumanization Results for Study 2

In ourIntroduction, we suggest that contextual variables other than the moral reprehensibility of a target’s past behavior might influence toleration of human rights violations through perceptions of the target’s deservingness. One example is dehumanization, which has been shown to predict less support for, and more willingness to violate, dehumanized individuals’ rights (e.g., Albarello & Rubini, 2012; Viki, Osgood, & Phillips, 2013). We tested whether dehumanization predicts toleration through perceived deservingness with data from Study 2.

We employed a 5-item dehumanization measurecombining both animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization (e.g., “Farid is like a wild animal”; “I feel like Farid is mechanical and cold, like a robot”; α = .94). The correlations between dehumanization and the other variables in the study are in Supplementary Table 1.

We first estimated a saturated model with dehumanization of the target as an exogenous variable(controlling for the experimental manipulation) and toleration as an endogenous variable, R2toleration = .37, p = .01, 95% BC CI [.23, .47]. The more participants dehumanized the target, the more they toleratedhis torture, β = .61, p = .004, 95% BC CI [0.48, 0.69].

We next added deservingness to the model as an endogenous mediator between dehumanization and toleration,R2toleration = .73, p = .01, 95% BC CI [.62, .81]. The more participants dehumanized the target, the more they thought he deserved severe treatment, β = 0.56, p = .002, 95% BC CI[0.42, 0.68]. Furthermore, the more participants believed the target deserved severe treatment, the more they tolerated his torture, β = 0.74, p = .003, 95% BC CI [0.62, 0.87]. The indirect path from dehumanization to toleration through deservingness was significant, β = 0.42, p = .002, 95% BC CI [0.29, 0.57]. There was also a significant direct path from dehumanization to toleration, β = 0.19, p = .01, 95% BC CI [0.03, 0.33].

In summary, our results are consistent with partial mediation. Specifically, our findings are what would be expected if dehumanization predicts greater toleration of a human rights violation, in part, through perceptions that the target of the violation deserves severe treatment.

References

Albarello, F., & Rubini, M. (2012). Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple categorisation and human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 875-882. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1902

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

Supplementary Table 1

Correlations Between Dehumanization and Other Variables, Study 2

Variable
D1 / -.07
D2 / -.21**
Toleration / .60**
Deservingness / .57**
Abstract Support for Humane Treatment / -.19*
Morality of the Target / -.45**
Perceived Likelihood / .30**
Punishment of Target / .53**
Interrogation Linked to Human Rights / -.29**
Target’s Treatment is Torture / -.41**

Note. N for correlations ranges from161-166. D1 = high moral reprehensibility (0) vs. no information condition (1). D2 = high moral reprehensibility (0) vs. low moral reprehensibility condition (1). Deservingness = extent to which participants agree that the target deserves severe treatment. Perceived Likelihood = perceived likelihood that the target had information related to terrorist activities. Possible scores for measured variables range from 1 to 9, except for abstract support (1 to 7) and perceived likelihood (0 to 100).

*p < .05. **p < .01.