Abstract
Purchase PDF (120 K)
E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links
Cited By in Scopus (0)
Purchase PDF (110 K)
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.005 
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
“It would have been worse under Saddam:” Implications of counterfactual thinking for beliefs regarding the ethical treatment of prisoners of war
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Keith D. Markmana, 
, 
, Nobuko Mizoguchia and Matthew N. McMullenb
Received 19 September 2006;
Abstract
In response to criticism following news of the mistreatment of Iraqis at the US prison in Abu Ghraib, some media personalities and politicians suggested that the treatment of these prisoners “would have been even worse” had former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still been in power. It was hypothesized that the contemplation of this argument has undesirable consequences because counterfactual thinking can elicit both contrastive and assimilative effects. In the reported study, participants considered how the prisoners at Abu Ghraib would have been worse off under Saddam. The results revealed that generating downward counterfactuals made participants feel better about Abu Ghraib (thereby evidencing contrast), and also lowered ethical standards regarding how the US should treat prisoners of war in the future (thereby evidencing assimilation).
Keywords: Counterfactual; Abu Ghraib prison; Contrast; Assimilation
