Do all lives have the same value? Support for international military interventions as a function of political system and public opinion of target states
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2012
Do all lives have the same value? Support for international military interventions as a function of political system and public opinion of target states
This research examined the support for international military interventions as a function of the political system and the public opinion of the target country. In two experiments, we informed participants about a possible military intervention by the international community towards a sovereign country whose government planned to use military force against a secessionist region. They were then asked whether they would support this intervention whilst being reminded that it would cause civilian deaths. The democratic or nondemocratic political system of the target country was experimentally manipulated, and the population support for its belligerent government policy was either assessed (Experiment 1) or manipulated (Experiment 2). Results showed greater support for the intervention when the target country was nondemocratic, as compared to the democratic and the control conditions, but only when its population supported the belligerent government policy. Support for the external intervention was low when the target country was democratic, irrespective of national public opinion. These findings provide support for the democracy-as-value hypothesis applied to international military interventions, and suggest that civilian deaths (collateral damage) are more acceptable when nondemocratic populations support their government’s belligerent policy.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
AnsteeM. J. (2000). The UN in Crisis? The 4th Erskine Childers Memorial Lecture. Action for UN Renewal, 27 June 2000. Retrieved November 26, 2009from http://www.reformwatch.net/fitxers/60.pdf
3.
AquinoK.ReedA.IIThauS.FreemanD. (2006). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 385–392.
4.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 193–209.
5.
BeauvoisJ. L. (2005). Les illusions libérales, individualisme et pouvoir social: Petit traité sur des grandes illusions [Liberal illusions, individualism and social power: Little treatise on big illusions]. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
6.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.
7.
CaronD. D. (1993). The legitimacy of the collective authority of the Security Council. The American Journal of International Law, 87, 552–588.
8.
CassesseA. (1999). Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are we moving towards international legitimation of forcible humanitarian countermeasures in the World community?European Journal of International Law, 10, 23–30.
9.
CedermanL.-E. (2001). Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a macrohistorical learning process. American Political Science Review, 95, 15–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3117626
10.
CohrsJ. C.MaesJ.MoschnerB.KielmannS. O. (2003). Patterns of justification of the United States’ “War against terrorism” in Afghanistan. Psicología Política, 27, 105–117.
11.
CohrsJ. C.MaesJ.MoschnerB.KielmannS. O. (2007). Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: A comparison and integration of psychological perspectives. Political Psychology, 28, 441–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00581.x10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00581.x
12.
CohrsJ. C.MoschnerB. (2002). Antiwar knowledge and generalized political attitudes as determinants of attitude toward the Kosovo war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 139–155.
13.
CohrsJ. C.MoschnerB.MaesJ.KielmannS. O. (2005). Personal values and attitudes toward war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11, 293–312.
14.
CrandallC. S.BeasleyR. K. (2001). A perceptual theory of legitimacy: Politics, prejudice, social institutions, and moral value. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 77–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DoiseW.SpiniD.ClémenceA. (1999). Human rights studied as social representations in a cross-national context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1–29. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199902)29:1<1::AID-EJSP909>3.0.CO;2-#10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199902)29:1<1::AID-EJSP909>3.0.CO;2-#
16.
ElcherothG. (2006). Individual-level and community-level effects of war trauma on social representations related to humanitarian law. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 907–930.
17.
FalomirJ. M.StaerkléC.DepuisetM.-A.ButeraF. (2005). Democracy justifies the means: Political group structure moderates the perceived legitimacy of intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1683–1695.
18.
FalomirJ. M.StaerkléC.DepuisetM-A.ButeraF. (2007). Perceived legitimacy of collective punishment as a function of democratic versus nondemocratic group structure. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 565–579.
19.
FeatherN. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psychology of justice and deservingness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 86–107.
20.
FedericoC. M.GolecA.DialJ. L. (2005). The relationship between the need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 621–632.
21.
FolgerR. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.
22.
HealyA. F.HoffmanJ. M.BeerF. A.BourneL. E.Jr. (2002). Terrorist and democrats: Individual reactions to international attacks. Political Psychology, 23, 439–467.
23.
HermanE. S.ChomskyN. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
24.
HerrmannR. K.TetlockP. E.VisserP. S. (1999). Mass public decisions to go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review, 93, 553–573.
25.
HogeW. (2008). Intervention, Hailed as a concept, is shunned in practice. The New York Times, January20, 2008.
26.
HolzgrefeJ. L.KeohaneR. O. (Eds.)(2003). Humanitarian intervention: Ethical legal and political dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HurdI. (2008). Myths of membership: The politics of legitimation in UN Security Council reform. Global Governance, 14, 199–217.
28.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS, 2001). Responsibility to protect. Report of the ICISS. Retrieved from http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp
29.
JacobyJ.SassenbergK. (2011). Interactions do not only tell us when, but can also tell us how: Testing process hypotheses by interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 180–190. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.76210.1002/ejsp.762
30.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
31.
LernerM. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x
32.
LiuJ. H.HnakeK.FischerR.HuangL.-L.AdamsG.. (2009). In-group favoritism in international justice concerns: Power, involvement, and attitudes toward the Iraq war and the cross straits relationship in five societies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 148–159.
33.
LouisW. R.TaylorD. M. (2002). Understanding the September 11 terrorist attack on America: The role of intergroup theories of normative influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 87–100.
McFarlandS. G. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360–367.
36.
MagioglouT. (2008). The creative dimension of lay thinking in the case of the representation of democracy for Greek youth. Culture and Psychology, 14, 442–466. doi: 10.1177/1354067X0809651010.1177/1354067X08096510
37.
MaloneD.KhongY. F. (2003). Unilateralism and U.S. foreign policy: International perspectives. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
38.
MannJ. A.GaertnerS. L. (1991). Support for the use of force in war: The effect of procedural rule violations and group membership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1793–1809.
39.
MaozZ.RussettB. M. (1993). Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87, 624–638.
40.
MintzA.GevyN. (1993). Why don’t democracies fight each other? An experimental study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 484–503.
41.
MotylM.HartJ.PyszczynskiT. (2009). When animals attack: The effects of mortality salience, infrahumanization of violence, and authoritarianism on support for war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 220–203.
42.
PalmerA. (1998). Colonial and modern genocide: Explanations and categories. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 89–115.
43.
PetersenR. (2002). Understanding ethnic violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PrattoF.GlasfordD. E.HegartyP. (2006). Weighing the prospects of war. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 219–233.
46.
PyszczynskiT.AbdollahiA.SolomonS.GreenbergJ.CohenF.WeiseD. (2006). Mortality salience, martyrdom, and military might: The great Satan versus the axis of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 525–537.
47.
ReiterD.StamA. C. (2002). Democracies at war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NJ: Free Press.
49.
RummelR. J. (1997). Power kills: Democracy as a method of nonviolence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
50.
SaidE.W. (1978). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin Books.
51.
SampsonE. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15–22.
52.
SchwartzS. H.StruchN.BilskyW. (1990). Values and intergroup social motives: A study of Israeli and German students. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 185–198.
53.
SenA. (1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10, 3–17. doi: 10.1353/jod.1999.005510.1353/jod.1999.0055
54.
ShapiroI. (2003). The state of democratic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.3917/crii.034.016310.3917/crii.034.0163
55.
ShapiroI.Hacker-CordonC. (1999). Democracy’s value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SimmaB. (1999). NATO, the UN and the use of force: Legal aspects. European Journal of International Law, 10, 1–22.
58.
SkitkaL. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588–597.
59.
SpiniD.ElcherothG.FaselR. (2008). The impact of group norms and generalization of risks across groups on judgments of war behavior. Political Psychology, 29, 919–941.
60.
StaerkléC. (2005). L’idéal démocratique perverti: Antagonismes dans les représentations du non-occident [The perverted ideal of democracy: Antagonism in representations of the non-West]. In Sanchez-MazasM.LicataL. (Eds.), L’autre: regards psychosociaux [The other: psychosocial views] (pp. 117–148). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
61.
StaerkléC.ClémenceA.DoiseW. (1998). Representation of human rights across different national contexts: The role of democratic and nondemocratic populations and governments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 207–226.
62.
StaubE. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SungaL. G. (2006). The role of humanitarian intervention in international peace and security: Guarantee or threat? In KöchlerH. (Ed.), The use of force in international relations: Challenges to collective security (pp. 41–79). Vienna: International Progress Organization.
64.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
65.
TetlockP. E. (1999). Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In LupiaS.McCubbinsM.PopkinS. (Eds.), Political reasoning and choice (pp. 239–263). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
TylerT. R.MitchellG. (1994). Legitimacy and empowerment of discretionary legal authority: The United States and abortion rights. Duke Law Journal, 43, 703–815.
68.
United Nations (2002). Human development report 2002: Deepening democracy in a fragmented work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VoetenE. V. (2005). The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force. International Organization, 59, 527–557.
71.
WarnerD.GiaccaG. (2009). Responsibility to protect. In ChetailV. (Ed.), Post-conflict peacebuilding: A lexicon (pp. 291–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
WeberM. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner’s Press.
73.
WelshJ. (Ed.) (2004). Humanitarian intervention and international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74.
WestonB. H. (1991). Security Council Resolution 678 and Persian gulf decision making: Precarious legitimacy. The American Journal of International Law, 85, 516–535.
75.
YzerbytV. Y.RogierA. (2001). Blame it on the group: Entitativity, subjective essentialism and social attribution. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 103–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
