Introduction Human rights are usually discussed from an ethical, political, or sociological perspective but less often from a psychological point of view. However, a social psychology approach to human rights adds depth and insight into the causes of and solutions to social problems. “A social psychology of human rights rooted in asymmetric intergroup relations” is an editorial commentary on a special issue of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. The Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) article was chosen because it provides an overview of how to integrate social psychological theories and methodologies into human rights discourse and practice. Furthermore, this article sheds light on multiple perspectives, including both optimistic and pessimistic views on the social psychology of human rights. Ultimately, it is hoped that this article will stimulate further research into the social psychology of human rights to better inform public policy and/or the strategies pursued by rights organizations.

Prior Research

In “A social psychology of human rights rooted in asymmetric intergroup relations,” the authors present some of the main conclusions drawn from empirical research in the social psychology of human rights. The review of literature includes references to McFarland’s (2015) study of how to operationalize and measure human rights, with regards to different levels of abstraction. Similarly, Malley-Morrison, Caputi, Gutowski, et al (2015) found that definitions of human rights vary depending on social and cultural variables. Lorenzi-Cioldi & Clemence (2001) also discuss the different modes of ethical reasoning individuals use when making decisions or judgments related to human rights issues or policies. Most research shows that people support the abstract concepts of human rights and social justice, but have trouble applying the principles of universality to people considered “bad” or labeled as “terrorists,” (Staerklé,...

135). For example, Malley-Morrison, Caputi, Gutowski, et al (2015) focus on the issues related to a utilitarian and/or consequentialist view on acceptance of torture.
Participants and Methods

The Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) research is not experimental. Therefore, there are no participants. Nor is the Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) qualitative research that uses interviews or case studies as methods of measuring social psychological responses to human rights issues. This article is also not a meta-analysis or systematic review of the literature on the topic of the social psychology of human rights. However, as a review of literature and analysis thereof, “A social psychology of human rights rooted in asymmetric intergroup relations” addresses the studies that were accepted for publication in a special edition of the peer-reviewed journal Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Findings

The authors found that there are several themes in the literature related to the social psychology of human rights. One of the most salient theme is related to the difference between abstract belief in universal rights and freedoms, and concrete application of those rights in terms of how to treat “bad” members of a society such as people charged with or convicted of criminal acts or acts of terror. In addition to the discrepancy between abstract ascription to and actual practice of universal rights, the authors note that research reveals how intergroup processes shape general attitudes towards rights and duties. Literature shows that social dominance orientation (SDO) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA) are inversely correlated with support of human rights. Not surprisingly, the authors found “support of inter-group inequality specifically decreases support for the rights of minorities and other marginalized groups,” (p. 135). In other words, deliberately oppressing…