More than words? “Genocide,” Holocaust analogies, and public opinion in the United States

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn recent years, most instances of humanitarian crises involving the large-scale killing of civilians have sparked debates regarding whether the event qualifies as genocide or can be justifiably compared to the Holocaust. These seemingly semantic arguments arise because both sides in the naming debate believe that the use of the word genocide or analogies to the Holocaust exert a powerful framing effect on public opinion and, ultimately, important policy decisions. Yet, virtually no evidence exists to demonstrate whether these words do, in fact, wield such power. In this article, we attempt to shed light on this question utilizing a controlled survey experiment conducted on a representative sample of American citizens. By systematically varying the terms used to describe a violent conflict, we isolate the effect of these terms on Americans' perceptions of the event. We find little evidence to support the consensus that the mere use of the word genocide or the Holocaust analogy exerts a powerful influence over public opinion. Labeling a violent event “genocide” or equating it explicitly to the Holocaust does not induce the public to become significantly more supportive of intervention, nor does it significantly alter moral judgments about the victims or the perpetrators.