We Only Care What You Do, Not Who You Are: Reexamining Human Rights and Public Support for War

Abstract Does the public apply a “double standard” for human rights abuses based on the perpetrator’s alliance status? Research shows that individuals are more supportive of military action against states that violate human rights. However, other studies claim that condemnations of violations are often contingent upon the strategic relationship with the perpetrators. In this paper, we bridge these different strands of literature by examining whether the effect of foreign states’ human rights practices on public support for war depends on the alliance status of the violator. To investigate this interaction, we conducted two preregistered experiments that independently randomized the state’s human rights practices and U.S. alliance status. Both experiments reveal that the alliance status of the human rights violator has a negligible effect on support for war. Consequently, our findings challenge the prevailing notion that the public applies a double standard for human rights violations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2024.19
Primary Topic
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

We Only Care What You Do, Not Who You Are: Reexamining Human Rights and Public Support for War

W. Xu, Qing Wang, Taylor Kinsley Chewning
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
article

We Only Care What You Do, Not Who You Are: Reexamining Human Rights and Public Support for War

W. Xu, Qing Wang, Taylor Kinsley Chewning
article en

Abstract

Abstract Does the public apply a “double standard” for human rights abuses based on the perpetrator’s alliance status? Research shows that individuals are more supportive of military action against states that violate human rights. However, other studies claim that condemnations of violations are often contingent upon the strategic relationship with the perpetrators. In this paper, we bridge these different strands of literature by examining whether the effect of foreign states’ human rights practices on public support for war depends on the alliance status of the violator. To investigate this interaction, we conducted two preregistered experiments that independently randomized the state’s human rights practices and U.S. alliance status. Both experiments reveal that the alliance status of the human rights violator has a negligible effect on support for war. Consequently, our findings challenge the prevailing notion that the public applies a double standard for human rights violations.

Journal of Experimental Political ScienceVol. 12(3)
Florida State University (US), Emory University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

We Only Care What You Do, Not Who You Are: Reexamining Human Rights and Public Support for War — W. Xu, Qing Wang, et al. · Journal of Experimental Political Science (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS