Whether attitudes toward postconflict justice and reconciliation are complementary or contradictory has been long debated. We posit that the answer to this question is context-dependent. Multilevel analyses of two large-scale surveys among war-affected communities in the former Yugoslavia (total N = 11,843), combined with geo-coded data on conflict events, demonstrate that a crucial contextual determinant is the prevalence of asymmetric violence in communities: The more a community was exposed to events of asymmetric violence, which disproportionately affect one group, the more the support for justice was linked to rejecting reconciliation. These findings were conceptually replicated with two different data sets and different operationalizations of justice and reconciliation attitudes. Conversely, in one study, the more a community was exposed to symmetric violence, which affects members of all adversary groups, the more the justice and reconciliation were perceived as compatible. This study shows the importance of a contextualized approach to understanding intergroup attitudes in postconflict settings.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.CulpepperS. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528.
2.
AjdukovicD.BiruskiD. C. (2008). Caught between the ethnic sides: Children growing up in a divided post-war community. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(4), 337–347.
3.
AlbinC. (2009). Peace vs. justice—And beyond. In BercovitchJ.KremenyukV.ZartmanI. W. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 580–594). Sage.
4.
AlbzourM.PenicS.NasserR.GreenE. G. T. (2019). Support for “normalization” of relations between Palestinians and Israelis, and how it relates to contact and resistance in the West Bank. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(2), 978–996.
5.
AllisonP. D. (2002). Missing data. Sage.
6.
Bar-Siman-TovY. (2004). From conflict resolution to reconciliation. Oxford University Press.
7.
Bar-TalD.BenninkG.H. (2004). The nature of reconciliation as an outcome and as a process. Oxford University Press.
8.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
9.
BiruskiD. C.PenicS. (2014). Traumatised selves: Does war trauma facilitate in-group bonding and out-group distancing? In SpiniD.ElcherothG.BiruskiD. C. (Eds.), War, community, and social change (pp. 137–153). Springer.
10.
BranscombeN. R.SlugoskiB.KappenD. M. (2004). Collective guilt: What it is and what it is not (pp. 16–34). Cambridge University Press.
11.
ČehajićS.BrownR.GonzálezR. (2009). What do I care? Perceived ingroup responsibility and dehumanization as predictors of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 715–729.
12.
ClarkJ. N. (2008). The three Rs: Retributive justice, restorative justice, and reconciliation. Contemporary Justice Review, 11(4), 331–350.
13.
DavidR. (2017). What we know about transitional justice: Survey and experimental evidence. Political Psychology, 38, 151–177.
14.
DixonJ.LevineM.ReicherS.DurrheimK. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(06), 411–425.
15.
DruryJ.BrownR.GonzálezR.MirandaD. (2016). Emergent social identity and observing social support predict social support provided by survivors in a disaster: Solidarity in the 2010 Chile earthquake. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 209–223.
16.
DyrstadK.EllingsenT.RødJ. K. (2015). Ethnonationalism in post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo: The effects of local violence and ethnic composition. International Area Studies Review, 18(1), 4–25.
17.
ElcherothG. (2006). Individual-level and community-level effects of war trauma on social representations related to humanitarian law. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(6), 907–930.
18.
ElcherothG.ReicherS. (2017). Identity, violence and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
FjeldeH.HultmanL.SchubigerL.CedermanL. E.HugS.SollenbergM. (2019). Introducing the ethnic one-sided violence dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Advance Online Publication.
20.
GibsonJ. L. (2006). The contributions of truth to reconciliation: Lessons from South Africa. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(3), 409–432.
21.
HallJ.KovrasI.StefanovicD.LoizidesN. (2018). Exposure to violence and attitudes towards transitional justice. Political Psychology, 39(2), 345–363.
22.
HameiriB.NadlerA. (2017). Looking backward to move forward: Effects of acknowledgment of victimhood on readiness to compromise for peace in the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 555–569.
23.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.PlatowM. J. (2010). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Psychology Press.
24.
HewstoneM.CairnsE.VociA.HambergerJ.NiensU. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 62(1), 99–120.
25.
HovlandC. I.SearsR. R. (1940). Minor studies of aggression: Correlations of economic indices with lynchings. Journal of Psychology, 9(301), 10.
26.
JelicM.Corkalo BiruskiD.AjdukovicD. (2013). Predictors of collective guilt after the violent conflict. Collegium Antropologicum, 37(1), 1–10.
27.
KteilyN.SaguyT.SidaniusJ.TaylorD. M. (2013). Negotiating power: Agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 978–995.
28.
LiM.LeidnerB.PetrovićN.OrazaniS. N.RadM. S. (2018). The role of retributive justice and the use of international criminal tribunals in post-conflict reconciliation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 133–151.
29.
LickelB.MillerN.StenstromD. M.DensonT. F.SchmaderT. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 372–390.
30.
LongJ. A. (2018). Jtools: Analysis and presentation of social scientific data. R package version, 1(0).
31.
MačekI. (2009). Sarajevo under siege: Anthropology in wartime. University of Pennsylvania Press.
32.
NadlerA.MalloyT.& FisherJ.D. (Eds.). (2008). Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful co-existence. Oxford University Press.
33.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 93–125.
34.
NoorM.ShnabelN.HalabiS.NadlerA. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 351–374.
35.
PenicS.ElcherothG.MorselliD. (2017). Inter-group forgiveness in the aftermath of symmetric and asymmetric communal violence: Contact density and nationalistic climates as contextual mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 209–227.
36.
PenicS.ElcherothG.SpiniD. (2018). When is collective exposure to war events related to more acceptance of collective guilt?Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(1), 143–173.
37.
PericaV. (2002). Balkan idols: Religion and nationalism in Yugoslav states. Oxford University Press.
38.
PettigrewT. F. (2018). The emergence of contextual social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 963–971.
39.
RaleighC.LinkeA.HegreH.KarlsenJ. (2010). Introducing ACLED: An Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset: Special data feature. Journal of Peace Research, 47(5), 651–660.
40.
ReicherS. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25(6), 921–945.
41.
ReicherS. D. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 820–834.
42.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121.
43.
SekulićD.MasseyG.HodsonR. (2006). Ethnic intolerance and ethnic conflict in the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(5), 797–827.
44.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (2015). The role of agency and morality in reconciliation processes: The perspective of the needs-based model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 477–483.
45.
SimkusA. (2007). Guest editor’s introduction: The SEESSP project. International Journal of Sociology, 37(3), 3–14.
46.
SpiniD.ElcherothG.FaselR. (2011). TRACES: Methodological and technical report. LIVES Working Papers, 4.
47.
SpiniD.MorselliD.ElcherothG. (2019). War experiences and emerging rights claims in postwar former Yugoslavia: The role of generalized conflict exposure and collective anomie. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(6), 1173–1189.
48.
SubotićJ. (2009). Hijacked justice: Dealing with the past in the Balkans. Cornell University Press.
49.
TeitelR. G. (2002). Transitional justice. Oxford University Press.
50.
TokačaM. (2012). The Bosnian book of the dead: Human losses in Bosnia Herzegovina 1991-1995. Research and Documentation Center.
51.
United Nations Security Council. (2004). The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies. Report of the Secretary General, United Nations.
52.
VollhardtJ. R. (2015). Inclusive victim consciousness in advocacy, social movements, and intergroup relations: Promises and pitfalls. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 89–120.
53.
WeidmannN. B. (2009). Violence and the changing ethnic map: The endogeneity of territory and conflict in Bosnia (No. 64). Households in Conflict Network.
54.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G.FeatherN. T.PlatowM. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375–389.
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.
