**Principal Investigator(s):** **Jonathan Chu** Stanford University Email: [jonchu@stanford.edu][1] Home page: [https://www.jonathanchu.org/][2] **Carrie Lee** U.S. Air War College Email: [carrieannlee1@gmail.com][3] Home page: [https://carrieannlee.com/][4] **Sample size**: 3429 **Field period**: 03/04/2018-05/22/2018 **Abstract** Does public support for armed humanitarian intervention depend on the race and religion of those it seeks to save? Theory predicts that people prefer helping strangers with whom they share an identity, but norms of paternalism and cosmopolitanism could reduce or reverse such favoritism. We test these propositions via two survey experiments administered to 3,897 Americans that randomized the racial and religious characteristics of foreigners in a hypothetical civil war. The data reveal that Americans, especially Christian Americans, prefer to intervene on behalf of Christians over Muslims. This effect can be explained by ingroup Christian affinity rather than outgroup Islamophobia. Similar identity-preference exists along the racial dimension, but a lesser extent. Finally, while scholars find that paternalist norms shape attitudes toward economic assistance, we find no similar effect. Cosmopolitan Americans, however, express less identity-based bias. We conclude that people act on their basic socio-psychological instincts but norms could attenuate these biases. **Hypotheses** Does public support for armed humanitarian intervention depend on the race and religion of those it seeks to save? **Experimental Manipulations** Randomized the race (black African versus white European) and religion (Christian versus Muslim) of victims in a humanitarian crisis. Control group in which victim identity and race were left unmentioned was also included in the experiment. **Outcomes** Support for U.S. military intervention to save victims of a humanitarian crisis abroad. **Summary of Results** Americans, especially Christian Americans, prefer to intervene on behalf of Christians over Muslims. This effect can be explained by ingroup Christian affinity rather than outgroup Islamophobia. Similarly, white (black) Americans preferred saving the lives of white Europeans (black Africans), though this race effect was not as robust as the ingroup preference to save co-religious others. **References** Chu, Jonathan, and Carrie Lee. 2019. "Race, Religion, and American Support for Humanitarian Intervention." Working paper, presented at the 2018 American Political Science Association Conference. Available at: https://www.jonathanchu.org/research.html. [1]: mailto:jonchu@stanford.edu [2]: https://www.jonathanchu.org/ [3]: mailto:carrieannlee1@gmail.com [4]: https://carrieannlee.com/