Dissertation Project
Naming, Shaming, and Feeling: The Emotional Dynamics of International Human Rights Shaming and Bystander Reactions
Abstract: International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) frequently employ “naming and shaming” strategies to expose human rights violations and pressure perpetrators into compliance with international norms. However, the mechanisms through which such efforts are effective is understudied. In doing so, this dissertation looks at the influence of bystander citizens and addresses the question: When and how does naming and shaming influence bystander citizen responses to human rights violations abroad? I argue that emotional responses—particularly anger, fear, and empathy—shape individuals’ willingness to support advocacy efforts aimed at mitigating further violations. I propose an original framework identifying three factors that affect emotional arousal: the identity of the shamer, identity of the victim’s identity, and the source through which they learn about the shaming. Focusing on women’s rights and physical integrity violations, my research design combines interviews with INGO campaign managers, survey experiments in the United States and India, with lab experiments utilizing psychophysiological measures to analyze emotional arousal amongst bystander citizens. This project thus deepens our understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind bystander responses to improve the effectiveness of naming and shaming efforts and contributes to scholarship on human rights, public opinion, and the micro-foundations of IR.
Methodology: Interviews, Survey Experiments, Psychophysiological Lab Experiments
Naming, Shaming, and Feeling: The Emotional Dynamics of International Human Rights Shaming and Bystander Reactions
Abstract: International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) frequently employ “naming and shaming” strategies to expose human rights violations and pressure perpetrators into compliance with international norms. However, the mechanisms through which such efforts are effective is understudied. In doing so, this dissertation looks at the influence of bystander citizens and addresses the question: When and how does naming and shaming influence bystander citizen responses to human rights violations abroad? I argue that emotional responses—particularly anger, fear, and empathy—shape individuals’ willingness to support advocacy efforts aimed at mitigating further violations. I propose an original framework identifying three factors that affect emotional arousal: the identity of the shamer, identity of the victim’s identity, and the source through which they learn about the shaming. Focusing on women’s rights and physical integrity violations, my research design combines interviews with INGO campaign managers, survey experiments in the United States and India, with lab experiments utilizing psychophysiological measures to analyze emotional arousal amongst bystander citizens. This project thus deepens our understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind bystander responses to improve the effectiveness of naming and shaming efforts and contributes to scholarship on human rights, public opinion, and the micro-foundations of IR.
Methodology: Interviews, Survey Experiments, Psychophysiological Lab Experiments
Overview of selected working papers
1) Social Capital, Platform Power, and the Private Authority of Big Tech Firms: Theorizing The Micro-Foundations of Platform Power Among Social Networking Sites
Abstract
In the era of digital globalization, Big Tech firms have emerged as pivotal non-state actors in International Relations (IR). A growing body of research theorizes the political influence of these firms through the concept of platform power, which emphasizes the unique combination of economic scale and intimate relationships with their users. Despite the analytical power of the concept, past work on the platform power of Big Tech firms obscures important differences among these firms. To improve our understanding of the foundations of Big Tech’s platform power, I focus specifically on Social Networking Sites (SNSs). SNSs are platforms that provide web-based services to enable individuals to create profiles, connect with others, and share information, opinions, and media. I argue that the micro-foundation of SNSs’ platform power is their exceptional capacity to foster social capital accumulation among their users. In turn, this cultivates loyal consumer bases and ultimately enables SNSs to wield significant private authority in global politics. I demonstrate the implications of this argument for how SNSs gain, maintain, and potentially lose private authority. This conceptual framework enhances our comprehension of Big Tech’s authority and helps further investigation into the normative implications, identity dynamics, and security concerns within this evolving landscape
2) Are Universal Human Rights Really Universal? Measuring Cross-National Public Perceptions of Human Rights
With Tyler Girard, Logan Strother, and Daniel Bennet
Abstract
Public perceptions of human rights practices can shape individual motivations to participate in political action and the broader receptiveness of the mass public to activists’ mobilization strategies. While there is a longstanding debate about the universality or cultural relativism of human rights, the universality of human rights perceptions within the mass public remains unclear. In this paper, we ask whether citizens in the United States and India – large democracies with important variation in economic development, geopolitical histories, and state human rights practices – hold competing views on the meaning of human rights. Using original surveys in each country, we evaluate this question in two ways. First, we develop a Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling approach to correct for differential item functioning and inductively assess citizen perceptions of human rights practices across a globally representative set of countries. Second, we implement a series of vignette experiments to test whether cognitive biases related to race shape the evaluation of potential human rights violations. We find clear evidence for divergent perceptions of human rights and suggestive evidence that fundamental attribution errors bias individuals’ judgments. This paper advances important debates on the universality of the international human rights regime and race in global politics.
3) What’s in a Name? Implications of Overusing ‘Sub-Saharan Africa
With Sky Kunkel
Abstract
Do names matter? In this paper, we demonstrate that there are two distinct but interlinked reasons to question the use of the phrase “sub-Saharan Africa.” First, we provide historic evidence on the origin of the phrase, highlighting its inception in Western conceptions of race used to separate “Arab” and “Black” Africa. Next, we show that the terminology is often used beyond its intended scope, as researchers make broad generalizations not supported by theory. We support our argument by qualitatively coding articles in top political science journals, showing that a large portion of research using the phrase does not have as substantial generalizability as far as is otherwise assumed. We finish our paper with a discussion of how the discipline can move forward, utilizing self-critical thinking without naming and shaming.