Human Rights Organizations as Agents of Change: When Do They Succeed and When Do They Fail?

As a key actor within the human rights transnational advocacy network, NGOs, such as Amnesty International, strive to shape individuals’ values on such contentious issues as the use of torture and to mobilize them to act on their values. While much has been written describing this advocacy work, little systematic research has been done evaluating its efficacy. We conducted archival research to identify the three most common messaging techniques employed by AI: (1) informational frames, where the focus is to educate the reader by presenting them with core facts and statistics; (2) personal frames, where a personal narrative is told with the aim of emotionally impacting the reader; and (3) motivational frames, which emphasize the reader’s agency and include a direct appeal to take action. The efficacy of each framing strategy was tested using an experimental analysis in which participants were randomly assigned to the control group (shown no campaign materials) or one of the treatment groups shown a campaign against torture featuring one of the three framing strategies. Participants were then surveyed regarding their attitudes on the use of torture and their likelihood to get involved in an anti-torture initiative. Results demonstrate that being exposed to an informational or personal narrative campaign increases one’s disapproval of the use of torture. However, none of the campaign strategies were effective at mobilizing individuals to take action. This paper bridges the gap between the advocacy and scholarly communities by empirically examining the messaging techniques commonly employed by human rights NGOs and offering suggestions for more effective campaigns

An Experimental Examination of the Efficacy of Human Rights Campaigns: Gender Differences and Stereotypes (abstract)

International Human Rights Organizations [IHROs] attempt to shape individuals’ values and mobilize them to act. Based on previous research, we know that IHROs may strategically manipulate gender images and stereotypes in order to increase consensus and action on human rights issues. The discourse of “women and children” as protected categories rests on the assumption that women do not participate in the public sphere, and as a result are apolitical and innocent, whereas men, especially draft-age men, are seen as political agents and potential combatants, and therefore automatically do not qualify for protection as civilians. While many scholars have rightly criticized this discourse as essentialist and empirically false, we ask the question – does it work? Are human rights campaigns, which rely on gendered imagery more effective at shaping individuals’ attitudes on a particular human rights abuse, and prompting them to take action on the issue? We test the efficacy of gendered human rights campaigns using an experimental research design. In our experiment, participants are randomly assigned to the control group (shown no campaign materials) or one of the treatment groups, which are shown a campaign against various human rights abuses featuring a personal frame (see McEntire, Leiby and Krain 2015) where the gendered imagery is minimal (a baseline), or one in which this imagery is amplified. We survey participants regarding their attitudes on the human rights issues, their likelihood to get involved in a human rights campaign, and their perceptions of men and women’s roles in times of war

The Power and Pathologies of Language: How Human Rights Messaging Can Also Affect Support for Violent Non-State Actors

Are framing strategies that are effective at encouraging pro-social behavior such as participation in human rights campaigns also effective at mobilizing support for “anti-social” and violent causes? Using an experimental research design, we seek to understand under what conditions individuals will express support for retributive violent action. We hypothesize that a personal story of victimization, wherein the humanity and vulnerability of the victim and the intensity of the violence suffered are described in vivid detail, will be necessary and sufficient to cause the audience to express support for the victim’s subsequent participation in organized, retaliatory violence. We expect that personal narratives will elicit both empathy and anger in the respondents, which in turn will make them more likely to support retributive violence. We also expect evocative images to enhance feelings of anger and lead to increased support for retributive violence. In our experiment, participants were randomly assigned to a control group (shown a message absent humanizing details about the victim or vivid description of the victimization that occurs) or one of eight treatment groups: (1) a personal story where neither the humanity of the victim nor the intensity of the violence is emphasized; (2) a personal story where only the humanity of the victim is emphasized; (3) a personal story where only the intensity of the violence is emphasized; (4) a personal story where both elements are emphasized; or (5-8) each of the above personal frames coupled with an evocative photograph. We survey participants regarding their reactions to the narratives, their support for human rights action, and their likelihood to approve of the victim’s participation in a fictitious violent armed resistance movement

The Effects of Different Types of Case Learning on Student Engagement

Two types of case learning-case studies and problem-based learning-have become staples in our active learning international relations classrooms. Yet few teacher-scholars have examined whether different types of case learning yield different learning outcomes. This study examines the student engagement in response to four different types of case learning: case studies with texts designed for the case method, those using written nontraditional case materials, those incorporating documentary films as case materials, and problem-based learning approaches. I survey students in two International Political Economy classes as a way of yielding an indirect assessment of how effective or useful these different approaches are, and which types of case learning engaged students most. Results suggest that the types of case learning that engaged students\u27 senses in multiple ways-problem-based learning and case studies using films as texts-enhanced their perceptions of the exercises\u27 effectiveness. Case studies that relied on written texts alone were not rated as highly, although were still seen as extremely valuable. These results are consistent with the findings from the cognitive psychology literature that informs the active teaching and learning approach. © 2010 International Studies Association

J\u27Accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides?

This study tests the effectiveness of naming and shaming by transnational advocacy networks in reducing the severity of ongoing instances of genocide or politicide. I argue that naming and shaming should force perpetrators to reduce the severity of these ongoing atrocities in order to shift the spotlight, save their reputation, reframe their identity, maintain international legitimacy and domestic viability, and ease pressure placed on them by states or IOs. I test whether naming and shaming by NGOs, the media, and IOs significantly reduces the severity of the killing. Ordered logit analyses of ongoing genocides and politicides from 1976 to 2008 reveal that naming and shaming by Amnesty International, the Northern media, and the UNCHR have significant ameliorative effects on the severity of the most extreme atrocities. Transnational advocacy networks have the potential, through naming and shaming, to lead to life-saving changes in these murderous policies. © 2012 International Studies Association

J'accuse! Does Naming and Shaming Perpetrators Reduce the Severity of Genocides or Politicides?

This study tests the effectiveness of naming and shaming by transnational advocacy networks in reducing the severity of ongoing instances of genocide or politicide. I argue that naming and shaming should force perpetrators to reduce the severity of these ongoing atrocities in order to shift the spotlight, save their reputation, reframe their identity, maintain international legitimacy and domestic viability, and ease pressure placed on them by states or IOs. I test whether naming and shaming by NGOs, the media, and IOs significantly reduces the severity of the killing. Ordered logit analyses of ongoing genocides and politicides from 1976 to 2008 reveal that naming and shaming by Amnesty International, the Northern media, and the UNCHR have significant ameliorative effects on the severity of the most extreme atrocities. Transnational advocacy networks have the potential, through naming and shaming, to lead to life-saving changes in these murderous policies