The Psychology of Human Rights

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, Clémence & Spini, 2015), p. 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 minorities or restricting minority rights is a systematic means of entrenching and justifying social injustice and inequality. Both SDO and RWA are also linked to punitiveness, which is in turn linked with the belief that rights should not be extended to “non-normative individuals,” (p. 135).
On the contrary, strong support for universal human rights is correlated with self-identification or self-classification on a “higher level,” such as identifying as a human being rather than as a member of a nation or ethnic group (Staerklé, Clémence & Spini, 2015, p. 135). The authors use the term psychological sense of global community (PSGC) to refer to human rights orientation. However, literature also reveals the tendency to differentiate between different human rights causes with some causes, namely LGBTQ rights, immigration, and labor rights, being less fully supported than other causes. The higher level of PSGC, the less the tendency to discriminate against different causes. In other words, social identity and self-identification have strong bearings on attitudes towards human rights.
Discussion and Conclusions
The authors conclude that new models for conceptualizing human rights will help with policy development. One of the most important findings is related to group identity and self-concept. A new guiding theory may also help future researchers interested in contributing further to the literature. Individual differences are perhaps more complicated to address, but are also salient in the discussion of the social psychology of human rights. Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) also refer to the limitations of current theoretical models to address human rights issues. More complex methods of compiling and analyzing social psychology variables will help bolster the research.
Three Types of Information
The three types of information included in the Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) that are also present in the textbook include intergroup relations, group identification, and stereotyping. Intergroup relations are constrained by variables such as whether the group has a subordinate or dominant status in the society. Attitudes towards human rights, and actual human rights policies and practices, are often related to whether a person identifies with a subordinate or dominant group. Experiences of oppression and identification with victimhood may also play a role in human rights orientation. People in dominant groups seek methods of justifying the oppression of minority or subordinate groups through propaganda and/or labeling. Likewise, people in subordinate groups might actually not support universal human rights if their group views a specific cause as being non-normative to that society. Another related type of information covered in both textbook and the article is group identification, covered extensively in the Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015) article. Group identification determines attitudes towards members of other groups, but also determines social norms.
A third type of information is related to stereotyping. Stereotyping leads to the types of cognitive and logical fallacies addressed in the Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015), whereby an individual or group that supports universal human rights in an abstract way might not support universal human rights for groups labeled as “bad” or for causes labeled as deviant.
Real World Applications and Suggestions for Future Research

This article presents clear practical applications for public policy, communications strategies among non-profits or governmental organizations, and for research. Future research should address some of the issues covered by Staerklé, Clémence & Spini (2015), only more in depth and with empirical or experimental research methods. It would be interesting to perform case studies, especially in global hotspots like the Middle East, and it would also be fruitful to identify differences between specific ethnic groups, age cohorts, and other demographic variables.







References

Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Clémence, A. (2001). Group processes and the construction of social represen- tations. In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology, Vol. 3: Group pro- cesses (pp. 311–333). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470998458.ch13
Malley-Morrison, K., Caputi, R., Gutowski, E., Campbell, T., Estuar, R. E., Akhurst, J., . . . Ste- vens, M. J. (2015). Engaging moral agency for human rights: Outlooks from the global south. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21, 68–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000085
McFarland, S. (2015). Culture, individual differ- ences, and support for human rights: A general review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psy- chology, 21, 10–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ pac0000083
Staerklé, C., Clémence, A. & Spini, D. (2015). A social psychology of human rights rooted in asymmetric intergroup relations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 21(1): 133-141.