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

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.

Ideology and international relations

“…For instance, conservatives have been found to be more likely than liberals to oppose immigration [20][21][22][23], prefer exclusionary solutions to the Syrian refugee crisis [24], support lethal drone strikes [25], and dislike Iran and the Palestinians [26]. They are also more tolerant of enemy collateral casualties in conflicts [27], and more opposed to affording human rights protections to terrorists [28]. Conservatives are particularly sensitive to the threats and uncertainties that bias IR-related information processing [18].…”