Suchergebnisse

Public pressure to take punitive action against human rights violators is often a driving force behind international sanctions. However, we know little about the way in which public support is shaped by varying types of abuse, the costs and effectiveness of sanctions and the differential harm they inflict upon the target population and leadership. Our study specifically addresses this gap by unpicking contextual factors that jointly sway the perception of morality and the cost-benefit calculus. We propose that there is no simple trade-off between instrumental and moral concerns. The context within which violations take place and the interactions between moral and instrumental dimensions shape preference formation. Findings from our paired conjoint experiment suggest that whether respondents support imposing sanctions depends on the category of human rights abuse and its perceived salience. Individuals also prefer sheltering the target population while punishing the leadership, but collective punishment becomes less unacceptable if the majority of the target population support the human rights infringements. The desire to do something against the perpetrators amplifies the appeal of punishing the leadership but assuages the moral concerns of harming the population.

Previous studies predominantly examined self-reported attitudes toward economic migrants and refugees along with different types of public concerns. Few of these studies used behavioral measures to analyze how asylum seeker inflows may sway public preferences toward them. However, the literature remains largely silent on the issue as to how correcting misperceptions of asylum seeker inflows may improve a host population's support for them. The authors' research addresses this gap, using a lab experiment to examine how providing factual information on asylum seeker inflows changes other-regarding behaviors and attitudes of a host population toward asylum seekers, depending on people's political leanings. Specifically, the authors examine whether factual information provided by a nonpartisan source may ease or backfire giving behaviors and unwelcoming attitudes toward asylum seekers through the moderation of partisanship. The findings suggest that providing accurate information about the number of asylum seekers counteracts low-level giving behaviors and unwelcoming attitudes of right-wing-leaning citizens.

Previous studies predominantly examined self-reported attitudes toward economic migrants and refugees along with different types of public concerns. Few of these studies used behavioral measures to analyze how asylum seeker inflows may sway public preferences toward them. However, the literature remains largely silent on the issue as to how correcting misperceptions of asylum seeker inflows may improve a host population's support for them. The authors' research addresses this gap, using a lab experiment to examine how providing factual information on asylum seeker inflows changes other-regarding behaviors and attitudes of a host population toward asylum seekers, depending on people's political leanings. Specifically, the authors examine whether factual information provided by a nonpartisan source may ease or backfire giving behaviors and unwelcoming attitudes toward asylum seekers through the moderation of partisanship. The findings suggest that providing accurate information about the number of asylum seekers counteracts low-level giving behaviors and unwelcoming attitudes of right-wing-leaning citizens.