To what extent do people support the universal application of human rights? The influence of self-interest and chauvinism.
Sabrina de Regt
Utrecht University
Introduction
Treaties are an essential step in guaranteeing human rights for all. Magna Carta was one of the first charters with significant global influence. A more recent example of such an influential treaty is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal refers to all members of the human family, irrespectively of where they live. You can wonder however to what extent people really support the universal application of these human rights. Only when people have a deep-rooted context-independent appreciation of human rights, the achievement of the ideals written down in such treaties is possible. In this paper we will examine to what extent people support the universal application of human rights. In other words, to what extent is there a gap between support for human rights in one’s own country and support for the same rights in other countries?Three competing hypothesis can be formulated. On the one hand it can be expected that support for human rights in the country where people live is lager compared to support for the same rights in other countries. This while people are on a daily basis more strongly influenced by their own national context and it might be in their own interest to support human rights in their own country. On the other hand it can be expected that unconditional support for human rights is lager when applied to other countries. This because people might have a blind-spot in acknowledging that human rights restrictions occur in their own country. Last, it could be expected that people do support the universal application of human rights. It could be argued that both support for human rights in a national context as well as in an international context have the same source: general support for human rights. As people generally strive to be consistent it can be expected that this will result in equal supportof human rights irrespectively of the context. In this article we will also gain more insights in the sources of a possible gap in the support for human rights. More specifically, we will study the influence of self-interest and chauvinism. In sum, next two questions will be thoroughly answered in this paper:
- To what extent do people support the universal application of human rights?
- Which factors influence support for the universal application of human rights?
The present study has several advantages over previous studies on the extent to which people support the universal application of human rights. First,though studies examined support for human rights in national as well as international contexts (e.g. Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990), they did not explicitly examine the gap in support for human rights. Second, only limited information is available on why people evaluate human rights situations differently across contexts (see e.g. Staerklé, Clémence, & Doise, 1998 who studied the influence of judgements of the population in countries). In this study we will provide additional information on the mechanisms behind support for human rights. Third, often only a limited number of rights are examined. Previous studies mainly focused upon civil and political rights (Hertel, Scruggs, & Heidkamp, 2009). In this study we will focus on three fundamental human rights: freedom of speech, the equality principle and social rights. These three rights cover the multidimensionality of human rights as demonstrated by Crowson (2004)[1]. Fourth, our results will be representative for the whole Dutch population while previous studies on support for human rights have been often based upon small, non-representative samples (McFarland, 2010). Last, some of our questions on support for human rights might be sensitive for social desirability (McFarland & Mathews, 2005). In this study we will make use of an internet panel and it is known that web administration enhances the level of reporting sensitive information and reporting accuracy (Kreuter, Presser, & Tourangeau, 2008).
Universal application of human rights
It is often assumed that people strive towardscognitive consistency(Abelson et al., 1968). Cognitive consistency means that attitudes (and behaviors) are compatible with each other. One famous theory around this idea is Leon Festinger’s (1957)Theory ofCognitiveDissonance. He argued that inconsistency results in psychological discomfort and an unpleasant tension and that people will therefore actively try to reduce this inconsistency. Based upon this theory we can expect that people who support gender equality in their own country will also support gender equality in other countries and that people who are supportive for freedom of speech in one context will also be supportive for freedom of speech in another context. In other words, based upon the theory of cognitive dissonance it can be expected that support for human rights is context-independent and that no (substantial) differences exist between support for human rights in one’s own country and support for the same rights in another country.
There is another reason why we can expect that no substantial differences exists between support for human rights in one’s own country and support for human rights in other countries: both attitudes have the same source. According to Fishbein and Azjen’s (1975)Expectancy-Value Theory all attitudes are the result of underlying beliefs and values. Beliefs can be described as expectancies that a behavior will have particular consequences. Regarding human rights it is for example expected that persons who believe that human rights will result in a better, fairer and more equal life for all are more likely to have positive attitudes towards human rights. This while people who believe that human rights do not have any notable consequences are less likely to hold positive attitudes towards human rights. The second source of attitudesare values. This is the extent to which people value a behavioral outcome. If people do not believe that it is important that people have equal rights, they are less likely to support equality between groups in specific situations or if people do not believe that freedom of speech in general is important they are less likely to be supportive of freedom of speech in specific situations. Because both attitudes towards human rights in a national context and an international context have the same sourcesit can be expected that no substantial differences exist between support for human rights in one’s own country and support for human rights in other countries.
Hypothesis 1: There is no differencein support for human rights in an international context and support for the same rights in a national context.
Support for human rights in national context is larger than in an international context
Several studies have suggestedhowever that support for human rights is not as context-independent as one might hope(Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990; Staerklé & Clémence, 2004; Staerklé et al., 1998). It can be expected that support for human rights is higher if it concerns human rights situations in the country where people live than in similar situations in other countries. This while people are more strongly influenced by the national context and that it is therefore in people’s own interest to support human rights in their own country. Though a large literature exists on the relation between self-interest and attitudes(Modigliani & Gamson, 1979; Popkin, et al. 1976), the link between self-interest and support for human rights has been examined only sporadically. Hertel et al.(2009) previously suggested that self-interest might play a role in support for human rights. They found for example that lower educated persons are more supportive for equal economic rights than higher educated persons. Similarly, de Regt (2014)argued that self-interest might play a role in support for human rights. In this study we expect that people are more supportive for human rights in their own country as it generally reflects their own interests better. Gender equality for example is more important for women in their own country then in another country. Similarly homosexuals are personally more affected by gay rights in their own country than gay rights in other countries. In other words it is expected that some kind of self-motivation underlies support for human rights. As a result it is expected that support for human rights in is higher in one’s own country than in other countries.
Hypothesis 2: Support for human rights is higher in one’s own country than in other countries.
Support for human rights in national context is smaller than in an international context
According to the Social Identity Theorypeople fundamentally strivefor a positive social identity(Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). The relative status and value ofone’s own group is based on comparisons with othergroups and a positive social identity is largelyestablished through favorable comparisons between one’sown group and other relevant groups. Individuals selectively perceive mainly positive characteristicsof their own group and as a result apositive attitude towards their own group is created.It is argued that the nation does contribute to people’s identity as people are socialized in it from earlychildhood(Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001). Theevaluation of one’s country thus contributes to the development of one’s self-concept. In line with social identity theory it can be expected that people are in general less open for negative evaluations of their own group (in this case their country) as they strive for a positive image of themselves and this is partly influenced by their image of their country. As a result people might be blind for human rights restrictions in their own country as this would provide them with a negative picture of their country and subsequently of themselves. Because people generally strive for a positive picture of themselves and their country it can be expected that people are less willing to acknowledge that human rights restrictions occur in their own country and that as a result unconditional support for human rights is higher in other countries.
Hypothesis 3: Support for human rights is lower in one’s own country than in other countries.
Data and methods
Data
We will use new and innovative data from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences Panel to examine to what extent people support the universal application of human rights. This panel is based upon a true probability sample of households drawn from the population register by Statistics Netherlands. Households that could otherwise not participate in the panel were provided with a computer and/or internet connection. Panel members complete an online questionnaire monthly and get paid for each completed questionnaire. Data from the main variables in this study we derived from the study Freedom and Liberation Day in the Netherlands(de Regt, van der Lippe & Jaspers, 2014). The data for this study was collected in April 2014. The response rate of this study was 79.8 percent. In total 6350 persons participated in this study.In general the respondents indicated that it was an interesting and clear questionnaire to complete.
Operationalisations
Support for human rights in national context and international context
In order to measure support for human rights in specific situations the following questions is used: Below you will see a series of two statements about the Netherlands. Number 1 on the scale means that you agree completely with statement A, and number 10 means that you agree completely with statement B. Can you please indicate which of the two statements you agree with most?In order to measure for example support for gender equality in the Netherlands we asked whether people tend to agree with statement A. A employer has the right to pay men more than women for the same jobor statement B. It is never justified that men get paid more for the same job than women. A full list of the items that we have used in this study is displayed in Table 1. We have chosen this answer scale in order to use the most neutral question format possible (see e.g. Nederhof, 1985 for more information on leading questions). We have furthermore made sure that the scale was balanced (half of the items started with a positive attitude towards human rights and the other half of the items with a negative attitude towards human rights). Furthermore, the items were given in a random order in order to minimize context effects (see e.g. Tourangeau & Rasinski, 1988 for more information on this topic). For each item on support for human right in one’s own country we have formulated an equivalent item on support for human rights in an international context. In order to avoid the risk that respondentsknew what we were intending to measure we have chosen not to employ identical items. Furthermore, we have first askedall the items on support for human rights in the Netherlands and subsequently a scale with support on human rights in other countries was given to the respondents (Below you will see a series of two statements about other countries than the Netherlands). All items were recoded so that a higher score indicates a high level of support for human rights (1= low– 10 = high).
[insert Table 1 here]
Mechanisms
In our theoretical session we have outlined several mechanisms that potentially influence the extent to which people support the universal application of human rights. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the extent to which people support the universal application of human rights we will also explicitly study these mechanisms.
Abstract support for human rights
In our theoretical section we have argued that both support for human rights in one’s own country and in other countries is the result of support the abstract principles of human rights. In order to test this support for the abstract principle of human rights is assessed by the following question: The Dutch Constitution recognizes several fundamental rights. Some people feel that there can be exceptions to the rule, while others say that the laws should always be enforced. Do you think that the following laws should always be enforced? 1) Groups may not be discriminated against, 2) Everyone has the right to (among other things) enough food, shelter and healthcare and 3) The freedom to say what you think and/or feel (1= should always be guaranteed – 4 = should never be guaranteed). We have recoded these items such that a higher score indicates higher levels of support for these abstract principles of human rights. Comparable scales have been successfully employed in other studies on human rights (Hertel et al., 2009; Maoz & McCauley, 2011).
Self-interest
In order to study the influence of self-interest on support for human rights we have employed several indicators. Which variables we have used depends on the human right under consideration.
Women Gender was used as indicator for self-interest regarding support for gender equality. Gender is operationalized as a dummy (1= women and 0 = men).
HomosexualThough the LISS panel is a rich dataset and many variables are available, sexual orientation was unfortunately not included in the LISS panel. We did use the following proxy: On what grounds is your group discriminated against? sexual orientation (1=yes, 0= no). This question has been only asked to persons who indicated that they are member of a group that is discriminated against in the Netherlands. Though it is a proxy, it can be assumed that people who are homosexual have a substantial higher chance to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation than heterosexuals persons[2].
Bad healthIn order to examine to what extent self-interest plays a role in support for health care we have used perceived health as indicator. In general it can be expected that persons with a bad health are more likely to make (extensive) use of the health care system and have personally higher benefits of this system than healthy persons. Subjective evaluation of heath is operationalized by means of the following question: How would you describe your health, generally speaking? 1) poor, 2) moderate, 3) good, 4) very good and 5) excellent. We have made a dichotomous variable in order to operationalize having a bad health (1= poor, the rest = 0).
MuslimIn this study we have examined support for freedom of speech by means of an item referring to Muslims and the Islam. It can be expected that it is in the self-interest of Muslims to be less positive towards the application of freedom of speech in this specific situation. We have therefore also examined whether or not people were Muslim. Being a Muslim or not was examined by means of the following question: Of which religion or church community doyou consider yourself a member?(1 = Muslim – 0 = other).
Voted for PVV The freedom of speech item in the Dutch context refers to Geert Wilders, the leader of the PVV. The following question was used in order to examine whether or not people have voted for the PVV (Wilders freedom party). For which party did you vote in the parliamentary elections of 12 September 2012? (1 = PVV- 0 = else).