The Attitudinal and Behavioral Legacies of Wartime Violence: A Meta-Analysis

• In Event: Measurement of Conflict Processes

Abstract

Exposure to wartime violence can trap certain countries in repeated cycles of violence, often due to intensified structural problems and societal polarization. Other nations successfully navigate out of this ’conflict trap’ (Collier et al. 2003). Understanding the diverse legacies of wartime violence—spanning political, social, economic, and health outcomes—is critical for comprehending what explains postwar dynamics and what policies are best to address the legacies of the past. Earlier research predominantly focused on the economic and health consequences of wars to an extent that Blattman and Miguel in 2010 emphasized the relative absence of knowledge on the effects on social and institutional outcomes, labeling them as "the least understood of all war impacts" (Blattman and Miguel 2010, p. 42). Ever since then, the scope and depth of research exploring the legacies of wartime violence on social and political attitudes and behaviors has not only increased but dramatically expanded.

Despite the impressive growth in the literature, this area of study is rife with critical, unanswered questions and several findings remain hotly debated among scholars. Two of these research questions appear particularly relevant among social scientists and policymakers. Does exposure to wartime violence erodes the social fabric of societies or, as some suggest, does it foster social cohesion? Does exposure to violence bring everyone together to cope with the traumatic collective experience or, as some suggest, does it further deepen social and political polarization?

To address the first question, numerous studies have challenged the once-prevailing conception of wars as an exclusively destructive phenomenon. In addition to the obvious negative effects, such as the destruction of physical infrastructure and loss of human lives,
armed conflicts may unexpectedly give rise to pro-social behaviors like altruism in their aftermath. These studies show exposure to political violence have pro-social, pro-participatory effects among victims in disparate settings such as Uganda (Blattman 2009) and Nepal (Gilligan,
Pasquale, and Samii 2014). However, others have emphasized how conflict experiences may, if anything, depress political engagement (Alacevich and Zejcirovic 2020) and social trust (Freitag, Kijewski, and Oppold 2019).

As for the second question, studies have examined how wartime violence affects intergroup dynamics and political attitudes. A significant finding is the “hardening effect” of conflict exposure, although the evidence for this is sometimes ambiguous. A prominent view in this research observes that wartime violence often exacerbates negative sentiments towards outgroups and those associated with the perpetrator’s identity. Building on this, researchers argue that the impact of wartime violence may not only amplify negative views towards particular outgroups, but also influence broader political beliefs and ideologies. This generalized hardening effect could lead to increased support for right-wing or nationalist movements, parties, and policies, possibly because of these groups’ alignment with stringent national security and exclusionary policies. This may also coincide with rising unfavorable opinions of minority or marginalized groups, and a tendency towards more authoritarian values. Conversely, other studies reveal increased empathy towards outgroups among those impacted by violence. Post-Liberian civil war attitudes showed greater acceptance of refugees (Hartman and Morse 2020), as did descendants of displaced individuals (Dinas, Fouka, and Schläpfer 2021).

In a prior effort to synthesize these findings, Bauer et al. (2016) conducted a groundbreaking meta-analysis on the impact of exposure to political violence on pro-social behavior. This analysis, the first to tackle this question, focused on trust, pro-social behavior, political interest, and civic and political engagement. Bauer’s findings suggested that experiencing violent conflict can indeed lead to increased cooperation and pro-social transformations among those affected. However, the analysis was limited in scope, encompassing only 16 eligible papers, all published up to the year 2015.

In this article, we build upon this foundation by offering a more comprehensive systematic review of the quantitative literature on the attitudinal and behavioral legacies of wartime violence. We consolidate the literature by focusing on three key debates: (1) the influence of wartime violence on pro-social behavior, (2) the tendency for attitudinal hardening targeted towards outgroups or identities associated with perpetrators, and (3) the broader spectrum of attitudinal hardening that extends beyond groups or identities linked to the perpetrators to encompass a wider range of political beliefs and ideologies. To accomplish this, we conducted a meta-analysis of all quantitative studies that contribute to the scholarly knowledge on one of these three debates. Our systematic review of this scholarship synthesizes the results of more than 100 manuscripts.

Authors

• Joan Barcelo, New York University Abu Dhabi

• Sarah Moore, Northwestern University