Tortured beliefs: How and when prior support for torture skews the perceived value of coerced information

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

“…Thus, in three experiments we investigated the effects of different arguments against torture on support for torture among people with varying degrees of attachment to and glorification of their country. This research contributes to an emerging knowledge base on attitudes toward torture in particular (Ames & Lee, ; Liu & Ditto, ; Tarrant et al, ; Viki et al, ) and on ways to develop a culture of peace and respect for human rights in general (Di Lellio & Castano, ; Kelman, ; Leidner & Li, ; Leidner, Tropp, & Lickel, ; de Rivera, Kurrien, & Olsen, ). While the studies were conducted in the context of attitudes toward torture, they also speak to our understanding of public opinion more generally and how public opinion can shift as a result of communication (i.e., moral and pragmatic arguments about a societal issue) and identity (i.e., attachment and glorification).…”

“…Importantly and problematically, in a representative sample of Americans both beliefs were stronger when people thought that torture is a long‐standing (rather than recent) practice (Crandall, Eidelman, Skitka, & Morgan, ). Similarly, and similarly problematically, people's support for torture leads them to see information obtained through torture as more valuable, in turn strengthening their support for torture (Ames & Lee, ).…”

“…Yet, recent research shows that people's belief in the effectiveness of torture de creases the more they believe torture is inherently immoral (Liu & Ditto, ). This suggests that people's belief in the effectiveness of torture does not only inform attitudes towards torture; attitudes towards torture inform people's belief in its effectiveness (see also Ames & Lee, ). In other words, people do not adjust their attitudes in line with torture's purported effectiveness as much as they adjust their beliefs in its effectiveness in line with their (preexisting) attitudes.…”

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

“…The implication is that torture endorsement is highly connected to its perceived effectiveness-a connection that some previous research has examined. 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).…”

“…Considering personalized dilemmas involving the threat of a loved one increases the likelihood people will endorse torture-a situational effect that occurs for persons of different personality and political orientations (Houck & Conway, 2013). Similarly, when evaluating instances of torture carried out by their ingroup (compared to an outgroup member), people were less empathetic and more dehumanizing towards torture victims, consequently justifying its use at higher rates (Ames & Lee, 2015;Tarrant, Branscombe, Warner, & Weston, 2012). Higher levels of desired retribution have also been associated with support for torture, as have the presentation of extreme scenarios such as the "ticking time bomb" (e.g., Bagaric & Clarke, 2005;Costanzo & Gerrity, 2009;Lefebvre & Farley, 2007).…”