Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:31:12.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handedness and the neurocognitive foundations of public attitudes about international laws and norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2018

Michael C. Grillo ,
Juris Pupcenoks  and
Keith B. Lyle
Michael C. Grillo*
Affiliation:
Schreiner University
Juris Pupcenoks
Affiliation:
Marist College
Keith B. Lyle
Affiliation:
University of Louisville
*
Correspondence: Michael C. Grillo, Schreiner University, 2100 Memorial Blvd., Kerrville, TX 78028. Email: MCGrillo@schreiner.edu
Get access

Abstract

Whether Geneva Conventions (GC) rights should apply to terrorists is a contentious question that has received little attention in public opinion research. Both personality and contextual factors may be important. We queried participants’ support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists, but first we measured participants’ authoritarianism and presented them with a scenario concerning an alleged terrorist. We manipulated whether (1) the scenario contained examples of GC rights and (2) the alleged terrorist’s religious affiliation was Muslim or non-Muslim. Support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists was high and unaffected by providing examples of GC provisions, but it was negatively related to authoritarianism. Support was reduced by priming with a Muslim terrorist, but only among participants exhibiting a behavioral marker for limited interhemispheric interaction — consistent-handedness. Consistent-handers in our sample expressed greater authoritarianism, suggesting that limited interhemispheric interaction promotes greater authoritarianism, which decreases support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists.

Keywords

Authoritarianismhandednessinterhemispheric interactionpublic opinioninternational lawGeneva conventions
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, J. H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J., and Sharp, J. T., “Foreign policy and the electoral connection,” Annual Review of Political Science , 2006, (9): 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A. J., “Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict,” Journal of Politics , 2007, 69(4): 975–997.Google Scholar
Sobel, R., The Impact of Public Opinion on US Foreign Policy since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Heller, K. J., “The use and abuse of analogy in IHL,” in Theoretical Boundaries of Armed Conflict and Human Rights, Ohlin, Jens, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 232–286.Google Scholar
Jinks, D., The Rules of War: The Geneva Conventions in the Age of Terror (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Rona, G., “Interesting times for international humanitarian law: Challenges from the ‘war on terror’,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs , 2003, 27(2): 55–74.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. B. and Grillo, M. C., “Consistent-handed individuals are more authoritarian,” Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition , 2014, 19(3): 146–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., and Christman, S. D., “Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance,” Frontiers in Psychology , 2013, 4: 1–6.Google Scholar
Cowell, P. E., Kertesz, A., and Denenberg, V. H., “Multiple dimensions of handedness and the human corpus callosum,” Neurology , 1993, 43(11): 2353–2353.Google Scholar
Habib, M., Gayraud, D., Oliva, A., Regis, J., Salamon, G., and Khalil, R., “Effects of handedness and sex on the morphology of the corpus callosum: A study with brain magnetic resonance imaging,” Brain and Cognition , 1991, 16(1): 41–61.Google Scholar
Luders, E., Cherbuin, N., Thompson, P. M., Gutman, B., Anstey, K. J., Sachdev, P., and Toga, A. W., “When more is less: Associations between corpus callosum size and handedness lateralization,” Neuroimage , 2010, 52(1): 43–49.Google Scholar
Dassonville, P., Zhu, X. H., Ugurbil, K., Kim, S. G., and Ashe, J., “Functional activation in motor cortex reflects the direction and the degree of handedness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 1997, 94(25): 14015–14018.Google Scholar
Bloom, J. S. and Hynd, G. W., “The role of the corpus callosum in interhemispheric transfer of information: Excitation or inhibition?,” Neuropsychology Review , 2005, 15(2): 59–71.Google Scholar
Christman, S. D., Henning, B. R., Geers, A. L., Propper, R. E., and Niebauer, C. L., “Mixed-handed persons are more easily persuaded and are more gullible: Interhemispheric interaction and belief updating,” Laterality , 2008, 13(5): 403–426.Google Scholar
Jasper, J. D., Barry, K., and Christman, S. D., “Individual differences in counterfactual production,” Personality and Individual Differences , 2008, 45(6): 488–492.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S., “Cerebral specialisation and interhemispheric communication,” Brain , 2000, 123: 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramachandran, V. S., “Anosognosia in parietal lobe syndrome,” Consciousness and Cognition , 1995, 4(1): 22–51.Google Scholar
Christman, S. D., “Individual differences in personality as a function of degree of handedness: Consistent-handers are less sensation seeking, more authoritarian, and more sensitive to disgust,” Laterality , 2014, 19(3): 354–367.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. L., Campbell, J. M., and Michel, G. F., “Unimanual to bimanual: Tracking the development of handedness from 6 to 24 months,” Infant Behavior and Development , 2013, 36(2): 181–188.Google Scholar
Arning, L., Ocklenburg, S., Schulz, S., Ness, V., Gerding, W. M., Hengstler, J. G., Falkenstein, M., Epplen, J. T., Güntürkün, O., and Beste, C., “PCSK6 VNTR polymorphism is associated with degree of handedness but not direction of handedness,” PLOS ONE , 2013, 8: e67251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagar, M. R., Federico, C. M., Lyons, K. E., Ludeke, S., and Koenig, M. A., “Heralding the authoritarian? Orientation toward authority in early childhood,” Psychological Science , 2014, 25(4): 883–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., and Rees, G., “Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults,” Current Biology , 2011, 21(8): 677–680.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. and Stenner, K., “Perceived threat and authoritarianism,” Political Psychology , 1997, 18(4): 741–770.Google Scholar
Christman.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Wallace, G., “International law and public attitudes toward torture: An experimental study,” International Organization , 2013, 67(1): 105–140.Google Scholar
Chilton, A. S., “The influence of international human rights agreements on public opinion: An experimental study,” Chicago Journal of International Law , 2014, 15(1): 110–137.Google Scholar
Chilton, A. S. and Versteeg, V. M., “International law, constitutional law, and public support for torture,” Research and Politics , 2016, 3(1):.Google Scholar
Ernst, C. W., Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerges, F. A., America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G. and Duckitt, J., “Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review,” Personality and Social Psychology Review , 2008, 12(3): 248–279.Google Scholar
Hall, D. L., Cohen, A. B., Meyer, K. K., Varley, A. H., and Brewer, G. A., “Costly signaling increases trust, even across religious affiliations,” Psychological Science , 2015, 26(9): 1368–1376.Google Scholar
Burgstaller, M., Theories of Compliance with International Law (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic, 2004).Google Scholar
Nelson, S. C., “Does compliance matter? Assessing the relationship between sovereign risk and compliance with international monetary law,” Review of International Organizations , 2010, 5(2): 107–139.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. J., “The false promise of international institutions,” International Security , 1994, 19(3): 5–49.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K., “International norm dynamics and political change,” International Organization , 1998, 52(4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, B. A. and Hopkins, D. J., “The constraining power of international treaties: Theory and methods,” American Political Science Review , 2005, 99(4): 623–631.Google Scholar
Legro, J. W., “Which norms matter? Revisiting the ‘failure’ of internationalism,” International Organization , 1997, 51(1): 31–63.Google Scholar
Thomas, W., The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Price, R. M., The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Tannenwald, N., “Stigmatizing the bomb: Origins of the nuclear taboo,” International Security , 2005, 29(4): 5–49.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M., The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A., “Civil rights in international law: Compliance with aspects of the ‘International Bill of Rights,” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies , 2009, 16(2): 437–481.Google Scholar
Stiles, K. W. and Thayne, A., “Compliance with international law: International law on terrorism at the United Nations,” Cooperation and Conflict , 2006, 41(2): 153–176.Google Scholar
Aldrich et al. Google Scholar
Berinsky.Google Scholar
Van Der Meulen, J. and Soeters, J., “Considering casualties: Risk and loss during peacekeeping and warmaking,” Armed Forces & Society , 2005, 31(4): 483–486.Google Scholar
Sobel.Google Scholar
McEntire, K. J., Leiby, M., and Krain, M., “Human rights organizations as agents of change: An experimental examination of framing and micromobilization,” American Political Science Review , 2015, 109(3): 407–426.Google Scholar
Davis, D. R., Murdie, A., and Garnett, S., “‘Makers and shapers’: Human rights INGOs and public opinion,” Human Rights Quarterly , 2012, 34(1): 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudoin, D., “Promises or policies? An experimental analysis of international agreements and audience reactions,” International Organization , 2014, 68(1): 235–256.Google Scholar
Meernik, J. and King, K., “A psychological jurisprudence model of public opinion and international prosecution,” International Area Studies Review , 2014, 17(1): 3–20.Google Scholar
Ausderan.Google Scholar
Hertel, S., Scruggs, L., and Heidkamp, P. C., “Human rights and public opinion: From attitudes to action,” Political Science Quarterly , 2009, 124(3): 443–459.Google Scholar
Grillo, M. C. and Pupcenoks, J., “Let’s intervene! But only if they’re like us: The effects of group dynamics and emotion on the willingness to support humanitarian intervention norms,” International Interactions , 2017, 43(2): 349–374.Google Scholar
Abrahms, M., “The credibility paradox: Violence as a double-edged sword in international politics,” International Studies Quarterly , 2013, 57(4): 660–671.Google Scholar
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., and Saxe, R. R., “Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy,” Current Directions in Psychological Science , 2011, 20(3): 149–153.Google Scholar
Van Prooijen, J. W. and Lam, J., “Retributive justice and social categorizations: The perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status,” European Journal of Social Psychology , 2007, 37(6): 1244–1255.Google Scholar
Mitchell, O., “A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 2005, 21(4): 439–466.Google Scholar
Heller.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C., “The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory,” Neuropsychologia , 1971, 9(1): 97–113.Google Scholar
Edlin, J. M., Leppanen, M. L., Fain, R. J., Hackländer, R. P., Hanaver-Torrez, S. D., and Lyle, K. B., “On the use (and misuse?) of the Edinburgh handedness inventory,” Brain and Cognition , 2015, 94: 44–51.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. B., McCabe, D. P., and Roediger, H. L. III, “Handedness is related to memory via hemispheric interaction: Evidence from paired associate recall and source memory tasks,” Neuropsychology , 2008, 22(4): 523–530.Google Scholar
Prichard, Propper, and Christman.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., and Heled, E., “A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model,” Political Psychology , 2010, 31(5): 685–715.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. and Weiler, J. D., Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Siegel, H. and Lee, C. E., “U. S. charges Nigerian in bomb bid,” Politico, December 27, 2009, http://www.politico.com/story/2009/12/us-charges-nigerian-in-bomb-bid-030973 (accessed February 23, 2018).Google Scholar
Worthington, E. L. Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., and Schmidt, M. M. et al. , “The Religious Commitment Inventory — 10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling,” Journal of Counseling Psychology , 2003, 50(1): 84–96.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. B., Logan, J. M., and Roediger, H. L., “Eye movements enhance memory for individuals who are strongly right-handed and harm it for individuals who are not,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 2008, 15(3): 515–520.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. B. and Martin, J. M., “Bilateral saccades increase intrahemispheric processing but not interhemispheric interaction: Implications for saccade-induced retrieval enhancement,” Brain and Cognition , 2010, 73(2): 128–134.Google Scholar
Williams, U. and Williams, S. P., “txttool: Utilities for text analysis in Stata,” Stata Journal , 2014, 14: 817–829.Google Scholar
Erdelyi, M. H. and Becker, J., “Hypermnesia for pictures. Incremental memory for pictures but not for words in multiple recall trials,” Cognitive Psychology , 1974, 6(1): 159–171.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F., Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (New York: Guilford Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., and Graham, J., “The moral ties that bind... even to outgroups: The interactive effects of moral identity and the binding moral foundations,” Psychological Science , 2014, 25(8): 1554–1562.Google Scholar
Grillo and Pupcenoks.Google Scholar
Grillo and Pupcenoks.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Lyle, Logan, and Roediger.Google Scholar
Lyle and Martin.Google Scholar
Das, E., Bushman, B. J., Bezemer, M. D., Kerkhof, P., and Vermeulen, I. E., “How terrorism news reports increase prejudice against outgroups: A terror management account,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 2009, 45(3): 453–459.Google Scholar
Lyle and Grillo.Google Scholar
Grillo, M. C., “The role of emotions in discriminatory ethno-religious politics: An experimental study of anti-Muslim politics in the United States,” Politics, Religion & Ideology , 2014, 15(4): 583–603.Google Scholar
Kalkan, K. O., Layman, G. C., and Uslaner, E. M., “‘Bands of others’? Attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society,” Journal of Politics , 2009, 71(3): 847–862.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grillo et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Grillo et al. supplementary material(File)
File 25 KB