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

Abstract

Does believing in torture's effectiveness shape the endorsements of its use? Using a multimethod approach across six studies, we provide converging evidence that efficacy beliefs can help increase understanding of individual differences and situational influences on torture support. Studies 1a and 1b found that torture opinions contained more efficacy-based language than other types of harm and that people relied more on torture efficacy than torture's inherent morality when conveying their views. Study 2 assessed predictors of torture favorability including effectiveness and other key covariates, revealing that efficacy beliefs strongly predicted torture favorability-an association that retained its predictive validity above and beyond individual differences known to influence torture support. Mediation analyses further showed that efficacy beliefs explained key associations with torture support. Studies 3 and 4 used moral dilemmas requiring decisions about torture versus other harm. Results showed that individuals who believed harm would be effective were more likely to endorse its use; this was especially evident for torture judgments. Study 5 replicated the torture-efficacy effect while also revealing efficacy effects for other interrogation techniques, thus suggesting the effect is driven more by the instrumental objective of torture than harm or moral violations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Methodological Challenges in the Study of Emotions in Politics and How to Deal With Them

“…4, 5; Mercer, ) allowing for the study of political emotions both as involuntary and as a potential resource for strategic political activity. The study of emotions in security politics and diplomacy thus concerns the political role of a range of emotional expressions such as feelings of national belonging (Ariely, ), trust/distrust between rival sides in political negotiations and conflicts (Bilgic, Hoogensen Gjørv, & Wilcock, ; Keys & Yorke, ), morality, traumas, and enthusiasm associated with acts of war and torture (Adisonmez, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, ; Houck, McFarland, Machia, & Conway, ), friendships (van Hoef & O'Connor, ), empathy (Baker, ), and shame (Ilgit & Prakash, ).…”

Studying Emotions in Security and Diplomacy: Where We Are Now and Challenges Ahead

“…Staying on the broad theme of human rights, NGOs and emotional diplomacy, the contribution by Houck, McFarland, Machia, and Conway () tackled the issue of when beliefs lead to (im)moral judgments by a thorough investigation of efficacy beliefs in regard to the use of torture. Through the use of a multimethod approach across six studies, they provide converging evidence that efficacy beliefs can help increase our understanding of individual differences and situational influences on torture support.…”

“…Emotions play an important role in the success or otherwise of security discourses and diplomatic practices. They can lead to a redirection of foreign policies (as exemplified by the contributions of Baker, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Keys & Yorke, ), investments in morally questionable practices conducted in the name of security such as torture or drone warfare (Edney‐Browne, ; Houck et al, ), and conflicts and wars (see Adisonmez, ; Ariely, ). The boundary drawn between the assumed self and the imagined other is so embedded in emotional labor and so engrained in politics and social and economic relations that even challenging these narratives becomes politically unimaginable (Bilgic et al, ).…”

“…This is useful and important for us to think about and analyze how political actors (e.g., in our contemporary political context, far‐right populist parties) generate and capitalize upon emotions about the “past”—which is now either long gone or did not ever exist—with the promise that the future of “the self” is in this past that is loved, missed, and longed for (Ariely, ; Hall & Ross, ; van Hoef & O'Connor, ). Similarly, fears and anxieties about the past can be instrumentalized for shaping the present and future of the collective self (Adisonmez, ; Eberle & Daniel, ) and what is legitimate to do in order to secure “the self” (Houck et al, ). In both cases, political actors empower themselves by interrupting the linear time of the imagined “self” and by invoking emotions about the past and calling for a reimagination of that same, mythologized past to shape a (presumed) better future.…”

“…The contributors of this special issue have dealt with emotions in at least one of the three ways in which we conceptualized emotions namely, as (1) frames that shape interpersonal diplomatic relations (Baker, ; van Hoef & O'Connor, ; Keys & Yorke, ), (2) as key tools that are used as part of the statecraft's toolbox (Bilgic et al, ; Eberle & Daniel, ; Hall & Ross, ; Houck et al, ; Ilgit & Prakash, ), and (3) as formative/productive dynamics with real effects on human beings (Adisonmez, ; Ariely, ; Edney‐Browne, ; Hall & Ross, )—that, in turn, often construct and maintain conflicts.…”