Michele Leiby

Human Rights Organizations as Agents of Change: An Experimental Examination of Framing and Micromobilization

Human Right Organizations (HROs) attempt to shape individuals’ values and mobilize them to act. Yet little systematic research has been done to evaluate the efficacy of these efforts. We identified the three most common messaging techniques: (1) informational frames; (2) personal frames; and (3) motivational frames. We tested their efficacy using an experimental research design in which participants were randomly assigned to the control group (shown no campaign materials) or one of the treatment groups shown a campaign against sleep deprivation featuring one of these framing strategies. We then surveyed participants regarding their attitudes and their willingness to act. Results demonstrate that all three framing strategies are more effective at mobilizing consensus than action. Personal narratives are the most consistently successful, increasing individuals’ sense of knowledge on the issue and their emotional reaction to the issue, leading them to reject the practice and participate in a campaign to demand its cessation.

Digging in the Archives: The Promise and Perils of Primary Documents:

This article explores the methodological obstacles to research on wartime sexual violence and the extent to which they can be overcome with archival research. It discusses issues of concept formation, counting victims of human rights abuse, and coding violations. It compares figures from the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commissions final report, an analysis of the Commissions published materials, and an analysis of the primary documents and finds that (1) the number of reported cases of sexual violence is significantly higher than the 538 cited by the Commission, (2) men were more often the targets of sexual violence than previously thought, and (3) sexual humiliation and sexual torture were common practices during the war.

How to Ask People for Change: Examining Peoples’ Willingness to Donate to Human Rights Campaigns

Imagine that Amnesty International, or any other large global human rights organization (HRO) has decided to start a campaign. Perhaps the issue is marriage equality, or stopping sleep deprivation during interrogation. These types of issues may be less widely accepted by the general public as human rights issues, requiring that the HRO first change minds, and only then try to mobilize their effort or resources on that campaign’s behalf. Raising money for such a campaign would be very challenging but doable, assuming that the organization knows how best to frame their appeals when they ask people to support the initiative.

How combining framing strategies affects human rights micromobilization

Human rights organizations (HROs) frame advocacy campaigns in order to shape individuals’ values and mobilize them to act. While previous work has examined some commonly used HRO frames, we know little about how they work as most often utilized—in combination. In this experiment, participants were randomly assigned either to a control group or to treatment groups shown campaigns against sleep deprivation during interrogation featuring frames used alone or in combination. We find that effects of personal frames on action mobilization are not mitigated by the inclusion of other frames, and that human rights campaigns with multiple frames yield outcomes that are neither better nor worse than a single personal narrative of human suffering. HROs should be able to use multiple frames in combination as needed without concern.