Social Psychology of Human Rights and Intergroup Relations
This paper reviews Staerklé, Clémence, and Spini's (2015) editorial commentary on the social psychology of human rights, published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. The review examines how social psychological frameworks — including social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, group identification, and stereotyping — shape attitudes toward human rights. Key findings highlight the gap between abstract support for universal rights and their concrete application, particularly toward groups labeled as "bad" or "non-normative." The paper also identifies real-world applications for public policy and recommends future empirical research, including case studies across diverse demographic and geographic contexts.
- Introduction: Framing social psychology's role in human rights
- Prior Research: Key studies on rights attitudes and cultural variables
- Participants and Methods: Nature and scope of the reviewed article
- Findings: SDO, RWA, PSGC, and group identity effects
- Discussion and Conclusions: Policy implications and theoretical limitations
- Three Types of Information: Intergroup relations, group identity, and stereotyping
- Real-World Applications and Future Research: Policy uses and recommended empirical research directions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear, structured format that mirrors an empirical research review, making it easy to follow despite the source being a commentary article rather than an original study.
- The student draws thoughtful connections between the reviewed article and broader course concepts — particularly intergroup relations, group identification, and stereotyping — demonstrating applied comprehension rather than mere summary.
- The identification of both optimistic and pessimistic findings (e.g., PSGC vs. SDO/RWA) adds balance and critical depth to the analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of comparative synthesis: the student not only summarizes the Staerklé et al. (2015) article but also situates its findings within a broader body of prior research and explicitly connects them to textbook concepts. This shows the ability to move between specific source material and wider theoretical frameworks.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into seven sections: an introduction that frames the significance of the article, a prior research section summarizing key literature cited by Staerklé et al., a methods section clarifying the nature of the source article, a findings section detailing empirical themes, a discussion section covering conclusions and limitations, a section applying three textbook concepts to the article, and a closing section on real-world applications and future research directions.
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, and 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 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 regard 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 and Clémence (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 the acceptance of torture.
Participants and Methods
The Staerklé, Clémence, and Spini (2015) research is not experimental; therefore, there are no participants. Nor is the Staerklé, Clémence, and Spini (2015) article 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 social psychology of human rights. However, as a review and analysis of the literature, "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 several themes in the literature related to the social psychology of human rights. One of the most salient themes concerns the difference between abstract belief in universal rights and freedoms, and the concrete application of those rights — specifically, 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 toward 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 that "support of intergroup 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 to 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 at 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 this human rights orientation. However, the literature also reveals a tendency to differentiate between different human rights causes, with some causes — namely LGBTQ rights, immigration, and labor rights — receiving less full support than others. The higher the level of PSGC, the less the tendency to discriminate among different causes. In other words, social identity and self-identification have strong bearings on attitudes toward human rights.
References
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., & Clémence, A. (2001). Group processes and the construction of social representations. In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology, Vol. 3: Group processes (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., . . . Stevens, 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 differences, and support for human rights: A general review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.