Search

Policies aimed at limiting border crossing and influencing other cultural values have been enacted domestically and internationally in the name of security. However, do these decisions concerning such tradeoffs resonate equally across all groups? In two studies, we probe the moderating impact of intergroup threat on the inclination to restrict human rights. In Study 1, we employ a unique economic tradeoff model to directly compare the value of security with the rights of either citizens or non‐citizens. In Study 2, we broaden these findings by examining whether support for infringements on the right to privacy varies among diverse groups. Across both studies, our results consistently show that an increase in intergroup threat corresponds to heightened restriction of rights, but only when contemplating individuals who are not citizens, such as non‐citizens, residents, or foreigners. We propose future research directions that include promoting the concept of a global community and exploring altruistic behaviours associated with rights protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals express support for civil liberties and human rights, but when threatened tend to restrict rights for both others and themselves. However, the question of whether or not rights are restricted to punish others or protect ourselves remains unclear. This meta-analysis integrates the findings of the effect of perceived threats on support for restrictions of civil liberties from 1997 to 2019. It includes 163 effect-size estimates from 46 different articles involving 91,716 participants. The presence of threat increased support for restrictions against outgroup members significantly more than ingroup members, providing a possible punitive explanation for support for restrictions of civil liberties. These findings contribute to the debate on rights and their relationship with deservingness, suggesting that we delineate those who deserve human rights and those who do not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]