The formal end of a political conflict does not always create lasting peace, as interpersonal violence can persist for years or decades after large-scale hostility ends. A key question for policymakers and peace builders, then, is how interventions into situations of low social capital might resolve persistent interpersonal conflicts sustained through complex networks of interaction. Existing approaches to this question generally focus on the small-scale effects of interventions like peace education that seek to change the attitudes of a few individuals at a time. Less focus has been paid to how such programs could leverage social networks to have broader effects on society as a whole. This paper explores this scale effect by building a conceptual agent-based model of conflict resolution and cooperation to examine when new ideas introduced by peace builders might spread throughout a population. We find significant benefits to layering different kinds of programs on the same populations, with the goal of leveraging the structure of society to maximize intervention impact.
AllportGordon. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AtranScottAxelrodRobertDavisRichard. 2007. “Sacred Barriers to Conflict Resolution.” Science317 (5841): 1039-1040.
3.
AxelrodRobert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
4.
BanerjeeAbhijitChandrasekharArun GDufloEstherJacksonMatthew O.2014. Gossip: Identifying Central Individuals in a Social Network. Working Paper 20422. National Bureau of Economic Research.
5.
Bar-TalDaniel. 2000. “From Intractable Conflict Through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological Analysis.” Political Psychology21 (2): 351-365.
6.
BasuchoudharyAtinFreytagAndreas. 2020. The Political Economy of Reconciliation: A Theoretical Primer. CESifo Working Paper, No. 8400. Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo).
7.
BergerThomasTroostChristian. 2014. “Agent-Based Modelling of Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Options in Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural Economics65 (2): 323-348.
8.
BhavnaniRaviDonnayKarstenMiodownikDanMorMaayanHelbingDirk. 2014. “Group Segregation and Urban Violence.” American Journal of Political Science58 (1): 226-245.
9.
BlattmanChristopherHartmanAlexandra C.BlairRobert A.. 2014. “How to Promote Order and Property Rights Under Weak Rule of Law? An Experiment in Changing Dispute Resolution Behavior Through Community Education.” American Political Science Review108 (1): 100-120.
10.
BradyMarkSahrbacherChristophKellermannKonradHappeKathrin. 2012. “An Agent-Based Approach to Modeling Impacts of Agricultural Policy on Land Use, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Landscape Ecology27 (9): 1363-1381.
11.
BraumoellerBear F.2004. “Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms.” International Organization58 (4): 807-820.
12.
BruckTilmanFergusonNeil T. N.. 2020. “Money Can’t Buy Love but Can it Buy Peace? Evidence from the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE II).” Conflict Management and Peace Science37 (5): 536-558.
13.
CanettiDaphnaKhatibIbrahimRubinAviadWayneCarly. 2019. “Framing and Fighting: The Impact of Conflict Frames on Political Attitudes.” Journal of Peace Research56 (6): 737-752.
14.
CasonTimothy N.LauSau-Him PaulMuiVai-Lam. 2019. “Prior Interaction, Identity, and Cooperation in the Inter-Group Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization166: 613-629.
15.
ClarkJanine Natalya. 2012. “Reflections on Trust and Reconciliation: A Case Study of a Central Bosnian Village.” The International Journal of Human Rights16 (2): 239-256.
16.
ColeElizabeth A.FirchowPamina. 2019. “Reconciliation Barometers: Tools for Postconflict Policy Design.” International Journal of Transitional Justice13 (3): 546-569.
17.
ColemanJames S.1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology94: S95-S120.
18.
DimanAmiad HaranMiodownikDan. 2023. “Legacies of Survival: Historical Violence and Ethnic Minority Behavior.” Journal of Conflict Resolution; Early Access.
19.
DroletAimee L.MorrisMichael W.. 2000. “Rapport in Conflict Resolution: Accounting for How Face-to-Face Contact Fosters Mutual Cooperation in Mixed-Motive Conflicts.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology36: 26-50.
20.
EmersonMichael O.KimbroRachel TolbertYanceyGeorge. 2002. “Contact Theory Extended: The Effects of Prior Racial Contact on Current Social Ties.” Social Science Quarterly83 (3): 745-761.
21.
FergusonNeil M.CummingsDerek A. T.FraserChristopheCooleyJames C.CajkaandPhilip C.BurkeDonald S.. 2006. “Strategies for Mitigating an Influenza Pandemic.” Nature442 (7101): 448-452.
22.
GeanakoplosJohnAxtellRobertFarmerDoyne J.HowittPeterConleeBejaminGoldsteinJonathanHendreyMatthewPalmerNathan M.YangChun-Yi. 2012. “Getting at Systemic Risk via an Agent-Based Model of the Housing Market.” American Economic Review102 (3): 53-58.
23.
GibsonJames L.2004. “Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process.” American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 201.
24.
GibsonJames L.2006. “The Contributions of Truth to Reconciliation: Lessons from South Africa.” Journal of Conflict Resolution50 (3): 409-432.
25.
GingesJeremyAtranScott. 2013. “Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict.” In Advances in Culture and Psychology, edited by GelfandMichele J.ChiuChi-yueHongYing-yi, Vol. 4, 273-301. Oxford University Press.
26.
GranovetterMark S.1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology78 (6): 1360-1380.
27.
GregorianHrachOlsonLaraWoodwardBrian. 2020. “Understanding Peacebuilding Coordination and Impact Using a Complex Adaptive Systems Method.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development15 (1): 91-110.
28.
HammondRoss A.AxelrodRobert.. 2006. “The Evolution of Ethnocentrism.” Journal of Conflict Resolution50 (6): 926-936.
29.
HammondRoss A.BarkinShari. 2024. “Making Evidence Go Further: Advancing Synergy Between Agent-Based Modeling and Randomized Control Trials.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121 (21): e2314993121.
30.
HeckbertScottBaynesTimReesonAndrew. 2010. “Agent-Based Modeling in Ecological Economics.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1185 (1): 39-53.
31.
HendersonKamal H.HammondRoss A.HomerJack B.. 2023. “Complex Adaptive Systems Simulation Modeling to Address Cardiovascular Disparities: Complex Science for a Complex Problem.” Circulation148 (3): 201-203.
32.
HromadzicAzra. 2008. “Discourses of Integration and Practices of Reunification at the Mostar Gymnasium, Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Comparative Education Review52 (4): 541-563.
33.
JuvinaIonLebiereChristianMartinJolie M.GonzalezCleotilde. 2011. “Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma with Intragroup Power Dynamics.” Games2: 21-51.
34.
KaoKristenRevkinMara R.. 2023. “Retribution or Reconciliation? Post-Conflict Attitudes toward Enemy Collaborators.” American Journal of Political Science67: 358.
35.
KasmanMattStrombomNicoleHammondRoss A. 2023. Evidence Review: Informing the Application of System Science Methods to Peacebuilding. Technical report. United States Institute of Peace.
36.
Leroux-MartinPhilippeO’ConnorVivienne. 2017. Systems Thinking for Peacebuilding and Rule of Law. Technical report. United States Institute of Peace.
37.
LiawAndyWienerMatthew. 2002. “Classification and Regression by randomForest.” R News2 (3): 18-22.
38.
MabryPatricia L.MarcusStephen E.ClarkPamela I.LeischowScott J.MendezDavid.. 2010. “Systems Science: A Revolution in Public Health Policy Research.” American Journal of Public Health100 (7): 1161-1163.
39.
MalhotraDeepakLiyanageSumanasiri. 2005. “Long-Term Effects of Peace Workshops in Protracted Conflicts.” Journal of Conflict Resolution49 (6): 908-924.
40.
McKoneKelly. 2015. Reconciliation in Practice. Technical Report. United States Institute of Peace.
41.
MeleadyRoseSegerCharles. 2016. “Imagined Contact Encourages Prosocial Behavior towards Outgroup Members.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations20 (05): 447-464.
42.
MitraAnirbanRayDebraj. 2015. “Implications of an Economic Theory of Conflict: Hindu-Muslim Violence in India.” Journal of Political Economy122 (4): 719-765.
43.
O’GaraDavidRosenblattSamuel F.Hébert-DufresneLaurentPurcellRobKasmanMattHammondRoss A. 2023. “TRACE-Omicron: Policy Counterfactuals to Inform Mitigation of COVID-19 Spread in the United States.” Advanced Theory and Simulations6 (7): 2300147.
44.
PaluckElizabeth LevyGreenSeth A.GreenDonald P.. 2019. “The Contact Hypothesis Re-Evaluated.” Behavioural Public Policy3 (2): 129-158.
45.
PaoliniStefaniaHarwoodJakeRubinMark. 2010. “Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36 (12): 1723-1738.
46.
ParksCraig D.VuAnh D.. 1994. “Social Dilemma Behavior of Individuals from Highly Individualist and Collectivist Cultures.” Journal of Conflict Resolution38 (4): 708-718.
47.
PettigrewThomas F.HewstoneMiles. 2017. “The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory.” Social Issues and Policy Review11 (1): 8-37.
48.
PettigrewThomas F.TroppLinda R.WagnerUlrichChristOliver. 2011. “Recent Advances in Intergroup Contact Theory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations35 (3): 271-280.
49.
PughJeffrey D.RossKaren. 2019. “Mapping the Field of International Peace Education Programs and Exploring Their Networked Impact on Peacebuilding.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly37 (1): 49-66.
50.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
51.
RuttanRachel L.NordgrenLoran F.. 2021. “Instrumental Use Erodes Sacred Values.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology121 (6): 1223-1240.
52.
SampsonSteven L.2003. “From Reconciliation to Coexistence.” Public Culture15 (1): 181-186.
53.
ScaccoAlexandraWarrenShana S.. 2018. “Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria.” American Political Science Review112 (3): 654-677.
54.
SiegelDavid A.2018. “Analyzing Computational Models.” American Journal of Political Science62 (3): 745-759.
StaubErvin. 2006. “Reconciliation After Genocide, Mass Killing, or Intractable Conflict: Understanding the Roots of Violence, Psychological Recovery, and Steps Toward a General Theory.” Political Psychology27 (6): 867-894.
57.
StroblCarolinBoulesteixAnne-LaureKneibThomasAugustinThomasZeileisAchim. 2008. “Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests.” BMC Bioinformatics9: 307.
58.
StrupinskienėLina. 2017. ““What Is Reconciliation and Are We There yet?” Different Types and Levels of Reconciliation: A Case Study of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Journal of Human Rights16 (4): 452-472.
59.
TilsonWilliam D.DuncanThomas K.FarhatDaniel.. 2020. “An Agent-Based Model of Ethnocentrism and the Unintended Consequences of Violence.” Eastern Economic Journal46 (3): 483-503.
60.
TronvollKjetil. 2020. “‘Brothers at Peace’: People-to-People Reconciliation in the Ethiopian – Eritrean Borderlands.” War & Society39 (1): 58-76.
61.
UgarrizaJuan E.NusioEnxo. 2017. “The Effect of Perspective-Giving on Postconflict Reconciliation. An Experimental Approach.” Political Psychology38 (1): 3-19.
62.
UlsanerEric. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press.
63.
VarshneyAshutosh. 2001. “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond.” World Politics53 (3): 362-398.
64.
WangDongJohnstonAlastair IainWangBaoyu. 2021. “The Effect of Imagined Social Contact on Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Japanese People.” Journal of Conflict Resolution65 (1): 223-251.
65.
WeidmannNils B.SalehyanIdean. 2013. “Violence and Ethnic Segregation: A Computational Model Applied to Baghdad.” International Studies Quarterly57 (1): 52-64.
66.
WrightMarvin N.DankowskiTheresaZieglerAndreas.. 2001. “Unbiased Split Variable Selection for Random Survival Forests Using Maximally Selected Rank Statistics.” Statistics in Medicine36 (8): 1272-1284.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
