{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034195933456561925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009242144177449169, 'mean_word_length': 5.603658536585366, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
America and the Age of Genocide

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.