According to a number of scholars (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Hamilton & Sanders, 1999; Haslam & Reicher, 2007), in the past and in the present century there have been many instances of crimes of obedience that are illegal or immoral acts committed in response to orders or directives from authority. Indeed, while there is broad consensus in condemning acts of destructive obedience as negative and immoral, also nowadays people sometimes approve laws that restrict individual freedoms and rights and that may lead to a curbing of civil liberties. For instance, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act passed on October 26, 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks was accepted by U.S. citizens without causing too much of an outcry, even though some members of the US Congress did criticize it for weakening civil liberties safeguards. In a previous research we explored how people react in front of the decision of sending innocents to anti-terrorist detention camps. Results showed that people respond differently when an illegitimate request (i.e. illegitimate detention) is put forward by a democratic or an authoritarian authority. When people perceive authorities as democratic they tend to obey, notwithstanding the legitimacy of requests. Following these results, the present research aimed to verify, in more details, whether the perception of democracy may lead to blind obedience and acceptance of human rights violations. Two experimental studies – with both attitudinal and behavioural dependent variables – are illustrated. In each of them, the perception of democracy of the governmental institution which violates the rights was manipulated. Results confirm that when people consider the authority as democratic, they are more likely to accept undemocratic procedures. On the other hand, people oriented towards moral inclusion are more likely to have critical attitudes towards authority, independently from the perceived level of democracy of authority. Besides, they are the more likely to disobey and to engage concrete actions.
Morselli D., Passini S. (2010). The hidden risks of democracy: An experimental study on acceptance of human rights violation. s.l : s.n.
The hidden risks of democracy: An experimental study on acceptance of human rights violation
PASSINI, STEFANO
2010
Abstract
According to a number of scholars (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Hamilton & Sanders, 1999; Haslam & Reicher, 2007), in the past and in the present century there have been many instances of crimes of obedience that are illegal or immoral acts committed in response to orders or directives from authority. Indeed, while there is broad consensus in condemning acts of destructive obedience as negative and immoral, also nowadays people sometimes approve laws that restrict individual freedoms and rights and that may lead to a curbing of civil liberties. For instance, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act passed on October 26, 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks was accepted by U.S. citizens without causing too much of an outcry, even though some members of the US Congress did criticize it for weakening civil liberties safeguards. In a previous research we explored how people react in front of the decision of sending innocents to anti-terrorist detention camps. Results showed that people respond differently when an illegitimate request (i.e. illegitimate detention) is put forward by a democratic or an authoritarian authority. When people perceive authorities as democratic they tend to obey, notwithstanding the legitimacy of requests. Following these results, the present research aimed to verify, in more details, whether the perception of democracy may lead to blind obedience and acceptance of human rights violations. Two experimental studies – with both attitudinal and behavioural dependent variables – are illustrated. In each of them, the perception of democracy of the governmental institution which violates the rights was manipulated. Results confirm that when people consider the authority as democratic, they are more likely to accept undemocratic procedures. On the other hand, people oriented towards moral inclusion are more likely to have critical attitudes towards authority, independently from the perceived level of democracy of authority. Besides, they are the more likely to disobey and to engage concrete actions.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
