Rationalizing Torture: How Giving the Public Information about Torture's Effectiveness and Necessity Influences Public Support for Torture

Recent debates on the Senate Report on Torture and statements made by Donald Drumpf that he would bring back “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” emphasize that the case on torture has not been closed. Given the important role that public opinion plays in modern policy choices, this research aims to address the following question: in the context of a highly threatening scenario, how does giving the public information about torture’s effectiveness and torture’s necessity influence support for torture? Findings from this research indicate that a considerable proportion of the public would disregard established legal and moral norms against torture—particularly when told that torture produced useful information, was necessary, or has a high probability of causing a terrorist suspect to produce critical intelligence.

However, findings also confirm that the public heavily rationalizes their views on torture: torture supporters define waterboarding as torture significantly less often than torture opponents (eg. 64% v. 98%) and hold less favorable feelings toward Muslims. Some evidence is suggestive of retributive motivations at play. Meanwhile, when presented with information about effectiveness and necessity, both Republicans and Democrats respond in utilitarian manner to some degree, but still express significant polarization on torture. Furthermore, they explicitly rationalize their positions differently: Democrats opposed to torture appeal primarily to deontological moral opposition while Republicans in favor of torture largely defend their support by appealing to necessity. Ultimately, this study concludes that information matters to Americans, but how they receive it may depend on their preferred side of the aisle.