The Effects of Moral and Pragmatic Arguments Against Torture on Demands for Judicial Reform

Abstract

Torture can be opposed on the basis of pragmatic (e.g., torture does not work) or moral arguments (e.g., torture violates human rights). Three studies investigated how these arguments affect U.S. citizens' attitudes toward U.S.-committed torture. In Study 1, participants expressed stronger demands for redressing the injustice of torture when presented with moral rather than pragmatic or no arguments against torture. Study 2 replicated this finding with an extended justice measure and also showed the moderating role of ingroup glorification and attachment. Moral arguments increased justice demands among those who typically react most defensively to ingroup-committed wrongdoings: the highly attached and glorifying. Study 3 showed that the effect of moral arguments against torture on justice demands and support for torture among high glorifiers is mediated by moral outrage and empathy but not guilt.

When Beliefs Lead to (Im)Moral Action: How Believing in Torture's Effectiveness Shapes the Endorsement of Its Use

“…For example, research suggests that watching dramatic "Hollywood-esque" depictions of torture successfully yielding information increases support (Kearns & Young, 2015) and that supporting torture is associated with higher expectations for torture's results (Ames and Lee, 2015). Other work has found that people's preexisting beliefs about the efficacy of torture helps maintain their support of torture, even in the face of pragmatic arguments against it (Leidner et al, 2017). Finally, some research suggests that torture efficacy can help explain previous findings using situational manipulations relevant to ingroup/outgroup distinctions: The effect of an emotional closeness to the victim manipulation on torture support was partially mediated by its effect on torture efficacy (Houck, Conway & Repke, 2014).…”

“…A similar set of obstacles exist when, for example, trying to persuade climate change deniers that climate change is real and human caused-that is, important attitudes tend to be less open to change (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). It is possible that the importance of efficacy to torture attitudes might even help explain recent findings from Leidner et al (2017), which demonstrated that using pragmatic arguments against torture's effectiveness (e.g., saying it does not work) did not impact opposition to torture, whereas moral arguments focusing on torture's violation of human rights did elicit such attitude change. Perhaps it might also explain the public's persistent ambivalence about torture support.…”

“…Although the current administration has since shifted its agenda away from interrogation policies, President Trump's public endorsements of torture reflect a sentiment held by an increasing number of Americans who support its use (Leidner, Kardos, & Castano, 2017). Recent polling data from the Pew Research Center reveals that 48% of people overall think torture is acceptable in some circumstances, a statistic significantly higher (79%) among conservative Republicans (Tyson, 2017).…”

Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

“…Furthermore, moral-persuasion research has tended to focus on messages advocating for relatively uncontroversial positions, such as the importance of donating blood (Ferrari & Leippe, 1992). Even cases presented as counterattitudinal persuasion, such as arguing against torture (Leidner et al, 2018) and in favor of environmental conservation (Wolsko et al, 2016), may have used less objectionable messages than intended, judging by attitudes in no-message control conditions, which lie on the side of the scales consistent with the messages. We were especially interested in examining the effects of moral appeals that take clearly counterattitudinal positions.…”

Why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization: The role of self-persuasion

“…The moral versus practical distinction is important, given that attitudes and arguments grounded in these two kinds of reasoning tend to yield different attitudinal outcomes (Leidner, Kardos, & Castano, 2018;Luttrell, Petty, Briñol, & Wagner, 2016;Luttrell, Phillip-Muller, & Petty, 2019;Wheeler & Laham, 2016). For example, research intersecting standard persuasion and political psychology, shows that presenting arguments grounded in moral values as opposed to those grounded in cost-benefit analyses are more effective in reducing support towards torture in the US (Leidner et al, 2018). Further, research in social psychology examining the consequences of attitude properties, shows that attitudes that are based on morality are more consequential in predicting behavior than those based on non-moral reasoning (Luttrell et al, 2016).…”