Why People are Committed to Human Rights and Still Tolerate Their Violation: A Contextual Analysis of the Principle-Application Gap

We report results from two experimental studies that show a large gap between support for general principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and denunciation of concrete violations of these principles. Participants in both studies read different scenarios involving human rights violations committed by various authorities in Western contexts. In all situations, attributes or actions of the victims could be used to justify the violations. Participants indicated their level of support for each human right and the unacceptability of violations of it. A dual principle was found to organize positioning towards the violations: participants with a rights-based orientation denounced the violation independently of the victims' attributes, whereas context-oriented respondents relied on the perceived deservingness of victims and considered the violation a just sanction of an unacceptable act. Judgmental differences were moderated by the situational context and participants' extent of agreement with human rights