Paper/Proposal Title
The 'Nayirah' Effect: The Role of Target States’ Human Rights Violations and Victims’ Emotive Images in War Support
Start Date
11-10-2017 8:30 AM
Keywords
human rights, psychology, political psychology, emotions, advocacy
Abstract
When a target state violates human rights, how does the identity of the victims and the presence of emotive imagery affect the level of public support for interventionist war? How does the perceived race and gender of victims affect this relationship? We employ a survey experiment to study whether and when information about a target state’s human rights violations affects public attitudes toward the use of force. Specifically, we manipulate a fictional victim’s race (light-skinned vs. dark-skinned) and gender (male vs. female), and explore how these variations affect support for interventionist war. In our experiment, we find that war support is stronger when a target state violates human rights. More importantly, public support for intervention was affected by the characteristics of the victims of human rights abuse. Support for interventionist war was found to be greatest among those participants who viewed images of light-skinned or female victims, though a white male image was found to me most impactful. Our causal mediation analysis showed that subjects viewing light-skinned or female images had less concern about the costs of intervention. Our findings suggest that the racial and gender characteristics of the victims of human rights abuse plays a substantial role in determining individual support for war.
Included in
American Politics Commons, International Relations Commons, Other Political Science Commons
The 'Nayirah' Effect: The Role of Target States’ Human Rights Violations and Victims’ Emotive Images in War Support
When a target state violates human rights, how does the identity of the victims and the presence of emotive imagery affect the level of public support for interventionist war? How does the perceived race and gender of victims affect this relationship? We employ a survey experiment to study whether and when information about a target state’s human rights violations affects public attitudes toward the use of force. Specifically, we manipulate a fictional victim’s race (light-skinned vs. dark-skinned) and gender (male vs. female), and explore how these variations affect support for interventionist war. In our experiment, we find that war support is stronger when a target state violates human rights. More importantly, public support for intervention was affected by the characteristics of the victims of human rights abuse. Support for interventionist war was found to be greatest among those participants who viewed images of light-skinned or female victims, though a white male image was found to me most impactful. Our causal mediation analysis showed that subjects viewing light-skinned or female images had less concern about the costs of intervention. Our findings suggest that the racial and gender characteristics of the victims of human rights abuse plays a substantial role in determining individual support for war.