Replication Data for: Unpacking the Role of In-Group Bias in US Public Opinion on Human Rights Violations

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, 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.

哪些行动者身份与社会政治裂痕会影响公众对侵犯人权行为的舆论态度？尽管已有研究表明群体内偏见会影响公众对政府侵权行为的反应，但不同身份特征的相对影响尚未得到直接检验。本研究基于社会认同理论（social identity theory）与道德刻板印象理论（moral typecasting theory），针对美国3200名受访者开展联合分析调查实验（conjoint survey experiment），以检验群体内偏见在多重行动者身份（施暴者、受害者与精英提示者）以及社会政治裂痕（党派认同、种族、宗教与公民身份）维度上的因果效应。研究发现，对施暴者的党派忠诚度凌驾于其他群体身份之上；仅改变施暴者的政治身份，即可成为影响受访者是否反对侵权行为的重要因素。令人意外的是，受害者的种族、宗教与公民身份对舆论的影响存在异质性，而党派提示的作用甚微。本研究结果揭示了群体忠诚何时会凌驾于人权关切之上，以及公众要求政府问责的诉求可能在何种情境下被削弱。