Security threats and fragile commitments:
Stress-testing German support for human rights
DFG-funded project (2023-2026)
This project examines whether, and under what conditions, support for human rights can be strengthened during times of crisis. Drawing on a series of innovative survey experiments conducted with the German adult population, we assess theoretically and empirically whether emphasizing the significance of human rights increases public support. We investigate how the characteristics of the rights holder and individuals’ predispositions toward human rights shape the impact of different arguments in crisis situations.
By testing the malleability of attitudes towards different rights under different scenarios, we generate new insights on which rights are seen as more or less contestable by different societal groups and individuals, using different arguments in support for human rights. Through a combination of survey and experimental methods, we map attitudes to human rights among the German population, test the fragility of these commitments when their universality and unconditionality are contested, and assess whether normative or instrumental arguments can bolster citizens' defence of their basic human rights.
Collaborators
Prof. Dr. Katrin Paula, Technical University Munich, Co-PI
Prof. Dr. Robert Johns, University of Southampton
Dr. Nadine O’Shea, Technical University Munich
Ongoing Sub-Projects
Resilience of Human Rights Support: When are People (not) Willing to Protect the Rights of Others?
People are often willing to embrace rights-restricting policies if they are seen to bring security benefits and restrain out-groups. What happens when the public is prompted to consider the costs of limiting human rights? To shed new light on this, we address two related questions: What arguments can strengthen support for human rights of others? How much does the answer to this question depend on people’s attitudes towards those whose rights are affected? We test the resilience of supporting the protection of basic rights, and the reasons behind it, in a low-threat context. In a novel survey experiment of over 6,000 adults in Germany, we investigate attitudes towards police violence against peaceful protesters. We vary the argument against amnesty for excessive police violence and identify protesters as out-groups with an innovative research design. We find that pro-human rights arguments do not generally sway people's opinion. But they do lower support for a rights-restricting policy in the most unlikely circumstances: if it is targeted against an out-group and if people have strong priors against human rights. Exploring justifications for respondents' opinions reveals the chasm in human rights attitudes when the right-holder does, or does not, belong to an out-group. Our study paints a cautiously optimistic picture. A stronger human rights narrative might reach those who are otherwise least committed to human rights, but negative views of others pose the greatest obstacle to popular support for universal human rights.
Events
19 Nov 2026 Presentation at the Nuffield Political Science Seminar, University of Oxford
26-28 June 2025 Presentation at the European Political Science Association Conference in Madrid
2-5 March 2025 Presentation at the International Studies Association Annual Convention in Chicago
10-12 April 2024 Workshop with Bert Bakker, Anita Gohdes and Neil Mitchell to finalize survey experiments
Read about the project in the FORUM Magazine of the University of Mannheim (in German).
