The forthcoming article “Unpacking the role of in-group bias in US public opinion on human rights violations” by Rebecca Cordell is summarized by the author below.
Americans are more likely to oppose human rights abuses perpetrated by a political out-group. Simply changing the perpetrator’s political party—from an in-group to an out-group—can determine whether individuals oppose their government’s human rights violations.
To understand what shapes public responses to domestic human rights violations, I conducted a national conjoint survey experiment with 3,200 US respondents. Participants evaluated different physical integrity rights abuse scenarios (including arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances) according to their disapproval and willingness to mobilize against the abuse.
For each violation, I varied the perpetrator and elite cue giver’s party affiliation and the target’s race, religion, and citizenship, as well as other contextual factors. To identify the effect of in-group bias, I compared how respondents reacted to abuses when they shared identities with these actors versus when they did not. Examining the relative influence of different identity characteristics is important, as an individual (bystander observing the violation) may have multiple connections to the actors in abuses at the same time.
Results show the perpetrator’s identity plays a key role in shaping respondents’ choices. Individuals are more likely to oppose abuses when the perpetrator is from the opposing political party. These patterns held across different political leaders, from US governors to presidents, and applied to both Democrat and Republican supporters. However, there are limits to partisan loyalty. In-group perpetrators are less likely to get away with targeting their supporters’ racial in-group or when bystanders share many identities with targets and elite cue givers.
Why does the perpetrator’s party identity matter so much? In U.S. politics, party loyalty dominates public attitudes on a range of topics, and people tend to see political leaders as the ones responsible for protecting rights. This hierarchy of blame can trigger strong in-group defenses to protect the group’s moral reputation, and punitive out-group demands for accountability. This powerful focus on the perpetrator can overshadow concern for the victim and make it harder for political elites to shift public opinion on abuses.
These findings have serious implications for policymakers and human rights groups. In democracies, human rights depend on public accountability, and public opinion can play a crucial role in shaping government behavior. While Americans are more likely to oppose abuses by political opponents, they may be inclined to excuse or overlook violations committed by their own side. This can reduce the political costs of repression and make it easier for governments to evade accountability.
About the Author: Rebecca Cordell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Their research “Unpacking the role of in-group bias in US public opinion on human rights violations” is now available in Early View and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.