Blow hot and cold: Popular support for the no-concessions policy in terrorist hostage-takings
Governmental responses to the frequently occurring terrorist hostage-takings, in which authorities must weigh the lives of the hostages against the lives of potential future victims, depend on popular support for governmental policy. Despite this, little is known about how people form their judgement of governmental policies in this moral dilemma. We argue that people typically have incomplete information and their policy support for concessions can be substantially altered by changing the information they receive about different consequences. Across three studies (overall N = 1,547) employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, we found that (a) people show lower support for concessions when they have incomplete information, (b) providing information on the benefits of concessions increases support for concessions, (c) support for concessions under full information increases when the benefits outweigh the costs and when a norm prescribes concessions. The potential implications for policymaking are discussed.