Unpacking the role of in‐group bias in US public opinion on human rights violations

Abstract Which actor identities and social and political cleavages drive public opinion on human rights violations? While in‐group bias is known to influence public responses to government abuses, the relative impact of different identity characteristics has not been directly tested. Building on social identity theory and moral typecasting theory, I use a conjoint survey experiment in the United States of 3,200 respondents to examine the causal effects of in‐group bias across multiple actor identities (perpetrator, target, and elite cue giver) and social and political divides (partisanship, race, religion, and citizenship). Party loyalty to the perpetrator dominates other group identities; simply changing the perpetrator's political identity can be an important determinant for whether respondents oppose violations. Surprisingly, the target's race, religion, and citizenship has mixed impact, and partisan cues have little effect. These findings highlight when group loyalty outweighs human rights concerns and where public demand for government accountability may be reduced.