Humanitarian interventions (HIs) are a common aspect of US foreign policy. Policy makers acknowledge the importance of public support for interventions, but scholars remain divided about the extent and basis of that support. Using a series of survey experiments, we evaluate attitudes about HIs, assess whether the public supports these interventions for instrumental or moral reasons, and test which aspects of morality are most salient. The findings indicate that interventions addressing humanitarian crises boost public support, with the basis of that support residing primarily in normative contentions that the United States has a moral obligation to protect civilians. This research advances understandings of morality in foreign policy, mediates debates about the determinants of public attitudes—including when the public makes moral rather than prudent decisions about interventions—and has important policy implications. It suggests a morally motivated public may be more likely to support risky HIs, increasing the likelihood of using force.
AdamsonFiona. 2006. “Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security.” International Security31 (1): 165–99.
2.
AldrichJohn H.GelpiChristopherFeaverPeterReiflerJasonSharpKristin Thompson. 2006. “Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection.” Annual Review of Political Science9 (1): 477–502.
3.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A.. 1986. “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (6): 1173–82.
4.
BerinskyAdam. 2007. “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for Military Conflict.” Journal of Politics69 (4): 975–97.
5.
BerinskyAdamHuberGregory A.LenzGabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis20 (3): 351–68.
CliffordScott. 2014. “Linking Issue Stances and Trait Inferences.” Journal of Politics76 (3): 698–710.
10.
CliffordScottJeritJenniferRaineyCarlisleMotylMatt. 2015. “Moral Concerns and Policy Attitudes: Investigating the Influence of Elite Rhetoric.” Political Communication32 (2): 229–48.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid, 206–61. New York: Free Press.
13.
DafoeAllanRenshonJonathanHuthPaul. 2014. “Reputation and Status as Motives for War.” Annual Review of Political Science17 (1): 371–93.
14.
DreznerDaniel W.2008. “The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion.” Perspectives on Politics6 (1): 51–70.
15.
DruckmanJamesGreenDonaldKuklinskiJamesLupiaArthur. 2011. Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
EichenbergRichard. 2005. “Victory Has Many Friends: US Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force.” International Security30 (1): 140–77.
17.
FinnemoreMartha. 1996. “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention.” In The Culture of National Security, edited by KatzensteinPeter, 153–85. New York: Columbia University Press.
18.
FinnemoreMartha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19.
FinnemoreMarthaSikkinkKathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization52 (4): 887–917.
20.
GartnerScott Sigmund. 2008. “The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach.” American Political Science Review102 (1): 95–106.
21.
GelpiChristopherFeaverPeterReiflerJason. 2009. Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
GelpiChristopherReiflerJasonFeaverPeter. 2007. “Iraq the Vote: Retrospective and Prospective Foreign Policy Judgments on Candidate Choice and Casualty Tolerance.” Political Behavior29 (2): 151–74.
23.
GeysBenny. 2010. “Wars, Presidents, and Popularity: The Political Cost(s) of War Re-examined.” Public Opinion Quarterly74 (2): 357–74.
24.
GoldsmithJack L.PosnerEric A.. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
GoodmanRyan. 2006. “Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts of War.” The American Journal of International Law100 (107): 107–41.
26.
GrahamJesseHaidtJonathanKolevaSenaMotylMattIyerRaviWojcikSean P.DittoPeter H.. 2013. “Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology47 (1): 55–130.
27.
GriecoJoseph M.GelpiChristopherReiflerJasonFeaverPeter. 2011. “Let’s Get a Second Opinion: International Institutions and American Public Support for War.” International Organization55 (2): 563–83.
28.
HaidtJonathan. 2007. “The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology.” Science316 (5827): 998–1002.
29.
HaidtJonathan. 2008. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” In Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations, edited by AdlerJonathanRipsLance, 1024–52. New York: Cambridge University Press.
HaidtJonathanGrahamJesse. 2007. “When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservations Have Moral Intuitions That Liberals May Not Recognize.” Social Justice Research20 (1): 98–116.
32.
HerrmannRichardTetlockPhilipVisserPenny. 1999. “Mass Public Decisions to Go to War: A Cognitive-interactionist Framework.” American Political Science Review93 (3): 553–73.
33.
HicksRaymondTingleyDustin. 2011. “Causal Mediation Analysis.” Stata Journal11 (4): 1–15.
34.
HolstiOle R.1992. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus.” International Studies Quarterly, Mershon Series: Research Programs and Debates36 (4): 439–66.
35.
HurdIan. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization53 (2): 379–408.
36.
HuthPaul. 1997. “Reputations and Deterrence: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment.” Security Studies7 (1): 72–99.
37.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustinYamamotoTeppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review105 (4): 765–89.
38.
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. 2015. “The Responsibility to Protect.” In The Responsibility to Protect. Accessed April 7, 2017. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/.
JentlesonBruce. 1992. “The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” International Studies Quarterly36 (1): 49–73.
41.
JentlesonBruceBrittonRebecca L.. 1998. “Still Pretty Prudent: Post-cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” Journal of Conflict Resolution42 (4): 395–417.
42.
JostJohn T.GlaserJackKruglanskiArie W.SullowayFrank. 2003. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin129 (3): 339–75.
43.
KatzensteinPeter. 1996. The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
44.
KeckMargaretSikkinkKathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
45.
KertzerJoshua D.BrutgerRyan. 2016. “Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory.” American Journal of Political Science60 (1): 234–49.
46.
KertzerJoshua D.PowersKathleen E.RathbunBrian C.IyerRavi. 2014. “Moral Support: How Moral Values Shape Foreign Policy Attitudes.” Journal of Politics76 (3): 825–40.
47.
KrepsSarah. 2007. “The 1994 Haiti Intervention: A Unilateral Operation in Multilateral Clothes.” Journal of Strategic Studies30 (3): 449–74.
48.
KrepsSarah. 2014. “Flying under the Radar: A Study of Public Attitudes towards Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” Research and Politics1 (1): 1–7.
49.
KrinerDouglasShenFrancis. 2014. “Responding to War on Capitol Hill: Battlefield Casualties, Congressional Response, and Public Support for the War in Iraq.” American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 157–74.
50.
LevenduskyMatthew S.HorowitzMichael C.. 2012. “When Backing Down Is the Right Decision: Partisanship, New Information and Audience Costs.” Journal of Politics74 (2): 323–38.
51.
LibermanPeter. 2006. “An Eye for an Eye: Public Support for War against Evildoers.” International Organization60 (3): 687–722.
52.
LippmannWalter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
53.
MandelbaumMichael. 1996. “Foreign Policy as Social Work.” Foreign Affairs75 (1): 16–32.
54.
MilnerHelenTingleyDustin. 2013. “The Choice for Multilateralism: Foreign Aid and American Foreign Policy.” Review of International Organizations8 (3): 313–41.
55.
MuellerJohn. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
56.
MuellerJohn. 1994. Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
PiazzaJames. 2008. “Incubators of Terror: Do Failed States Promote Transnational Terrorism?” International Studies Quarterly52 (3): 469–88.
63.
PowerSamantha. 2002. A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.
64.
PressDaryl. 2005. Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
65.
RobinsonPiers. 2011. “The CNN Effect Reconsidered: Mapping a Research Agenda for the Future.” Media, War, & Conflict4 (1): 3–11.
66.
RotbergRobert. 2003. State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. New York: Brookings Institution Press.
67.
RyanTim. 2014. “Reconsidering Moral Issues in Politics.” Journal of Politics76 (2): 380–97.
68.
ShapiroRobertPageBenjamin. 1988. “Foreign Policy and the Rational Public.” Journal of Conflict Resolution32 (2): 211–47.
69.
SmeltzDinaDaalderIvoKafuraCraig. 2014. Foreign Policy in the Age of Retrenchment: Results of the 2014 Chicago Council Survey of American Public Opinion. Chicago, IL: Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
70.
SobelRichard. 1998. “Trends: United States Intervention in Bosnia.” Public Opinion Quarterly62 (2): 250–78.
71.
StamAllan. 1996. Win, Lose, or Draw: Domestic Politics and the Crucible of War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
72.
SteinRachel M.2015. “War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by Democracies.” American Political Science Review109 (3): 556–73.
73.
TannenwaldNina. 2005. “Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo.” International Security29 (4): 5–49.
74.
ThompsonAlexander. 2006. “Coercion through IOs: The Security Council and the Logic of Information Transmission.” International Organization60 (1): 1–34.
75.
TomzMichael. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization61 (4): 821–40.
76.
TomzMichaelWeeksJessica. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review107 (4): 849–65.
77.
VoetenErik. 2001. “Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action.” American Political Science Review95 (4): 845–58.
78.
WallaceGeoffrey P. R.2013. “International Law and Public Attitudes towards Torture: An Experimental Study.” International Organization67 (1): 105–40.
79.
WalshJames Igoe. 2015. “Precision Weapons, Civilian Casualties, and Support for the Use of Force.” Political Psychology36 (5): 507–23.
80.
WalterBarbara. 2009. Reputation and Civil War: Why Separatist Conflicts Are So Violent. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81.
WeinbergJillFreeseJeremyMcElhattanDavid. 2014. “Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-based and a Crowdsource-recruited Sample.” Sociological Science2014 (1): 292–310.
82.
WheelerNicholas. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
83.
ZacherMark W.2001. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” International Organization55 (2): 215–50.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
