America and the Age of Genocide: Labeling a Third-Party Conflict “Genocide” Decreases Support for Intervention Among Ingroup-Glorifying Americans Because They Down-Regulate Guilt and Perceived Responsibility to Intervene

Drawing on research on the collapse of compassion and group processes and interrelations,four experiments investigated how labeling a conflict “genocide” affects distant bystanders’ support for intervention. the genocide label (compared with no label or the label “not a genocide”) weakened americans’ support for intervention in a crisis analogous to darfur. ingroup glorification moderated this effect such that the genocide label decreased support at high levels of glorification (studies 1-3). ingroup attachment,if anything,moderated such that the genocide label increased support at high levels of attachment (studies 1 and 3). importantly,the effects occurred even when controlling for conservatism (studies 1 and 3),gender,religion,military affiliation,and level of education (study 2). decreases in anticipated guilt over possible nonintervention (studies 1 and 3) among high glorifiers,and a subsequent decrease in perceived obligation to intervene (study 3),mediated the effect of the genocide label on support for intervention. © 2015,2015 by the society for personality and social psychology,inc.