Bernhard Leidner, Ph.D. - US grants

What is the best way to achieve reconciliation and peace following international or inter-ethnic conflict and violence? Impunity, trials or tribunals, and truth commissions are different methods to that have been used to try to resolve conflicts. Dr. Bernhard Leidner (University of Massachusetts Amherst) and colleagues will test which approaches to international/inter-ethnic violence (AIVs) are most likely to facilitate reconciliation and peace in post-conflict societies. They have developed a model explaining the consequences and underlying mechanisms of different AIVs among perpetrators and victims. Dr. Leidner and his collaborators hypothesize that perceived fairness of an AIV leads to increased willingness to reconcile and decreased motivation for future violence; and this occurs by increasing empathy for, and decreasing anger at and dehumanization of the adversarial group of a past conflict. Which AIV will be perceived as most fair should depend on people's membership in victim or perpetrator groups, and their beliefs in the superiority of this group over other groups. This theory will be tested in ten empirical studies in multiple countries, utilizing a mix of research designs. Participants will include heterogeneous and representative groups of adults, some whom have experienced past international or inter-ethnic conflict.

This research tests hypotheses of theoretical and scholarly interest at the center of important large-scale social problems. Knowledge gained from this work will be of interest to scholars from a broad range of disciplines (e.g., foreign/ international relations, international law, political science, psychology, sociology) and will inform our understanding of and decisions about AIVs. Therefore, this research constitutes an important step in working towards minimizing international or inter-ethnic violence and maximizing reconciliation and peace. This project will also provide unique, interdisciplinary training and education for graduate researchers and undergraduate research assistants, including some from under-represented backgrounds. Research findings will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations, as well as through NGOs and other entities outside of academia.

The most defining feature of conflict between groups is also the most challenging to address: the suffering and perpetration of violence. Intergroup violence inflicts collective trauma for both victims and perpetrators, albeit in different ways. A growing field of research identifies such past experiences of trauma as an obstacle to conflict resolution. The collective memory of past trauma that implicates another group can facilitate and escalate conflict with that group long after those events. Understanding such issues may help society develop more peaceful interactions between groups in conflict within a society as well as between nations. Investigators in the U.S. along with investigators in Israel test a comprehensive theoretical approach that links collective trauma and future intergroup violence. One prediction is that both victims and perpetuators can perceive their group's collective trauma in similar ways: as either a threat, creating demands which outstrip one's ability to handle it; or as a challenge, strongly demanding but which can be overcome and result in positive outcomes. Cardiovascular research suggests that challenge responses involve healthier physiological states and more adaptive behavior than do threat responses. In the case of collective trauma, the stress response may have tremendous societal impact as well--by causing defense motivations that result in conflict escalation for all involved. In their project the investigators test the hypothesis that the determining factor in perceiving trauma as threat versus challenge is in-group glorification, or people's deference to their own group and tendency to view it as superior to other groups. By testing these hypotheses, this research can generate knowledge that could improve societal outcomes related to large-scale conflict. In addition, the project may inform efforts to develop evidence-based interventions that deal with collective trauma and the violence that stems from it.

Eight studies address four primary objectives. One aim is to understand how collective trauma perceptions can differ in ways that escalate or deescalate conflict. Among perpetrators, those who glorify their group should see their group's collective trauma of perpetrating violence as a threat to the group's image, whereas those who do not glorify their group should see it as a challenge. Among victims, those who glorify their group should see their group's collective trauma of suffering violence as a threat to the group's existence, whereas others should see it as a challenge and potential for growth. The second aim is exploring how historical representations of trauma affect motivation and intention to act. Cognitive representations of past trauma in terms of threat should make people defensive and take measures that ultimately facilitate future violence. Representing past trauma in terms of challenge should reduce defensive behavior and ultimately prevent future violence. The third aim is testing whether individuals with different historical representations of trauma have cardiovascular responses that reflect threat versus challenge stress responses. The fourth aim is determining whether experimental manipulations can shift threat representations into becoming challenge representations. To test these aims, the investigators use multiple methods, including self-report measures and impedance cardiography. Research participants are from multiple countries that have experienced collective trauma.

The international component of this research was supported by co-funding from the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE).

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis threatening millions of lives, the economy, and national infrastructures, including healthcare, housing markets, and industrial supply chains. Health organizations, government, and local communities have introduced various measures to reduce the impact of the pandemic. In this global context, this project examines and compares people?s compliance with these measures over time, and across diverse cultural and governance contexts. Specifically, it focuses on how different value and belief systems influence (non-)compliance with containment measures as the pandemic unfolds. In doing so, the research enhances basic understanding of science/policy communications and their impact on public attitudes and behaviors. Ultimately, the project helps identify best science communication practices to inform and educate people about COVID-19 and similar crises.

Policies and scientific recommendations aimed to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus have generated critical discussions about the prioritization of collective versus individual values. Tradeoffs often focus on public security and health versus individual autonomy and civil liberties. As a result, large-scale societal crises have the potential to shift value prioritization both during and beyond the crisis. By integrating theories from social and cross-cultural psychology, this research explores the role of different value systems, including basic human values, social values, and cultural values, in public responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. A collaborative research network will collect primary data from representative adult samples at three time points during the pandemic. Changes are tracked in public endorsement of different values over the course of three months. Analyses focus on how these changes predict attitudinal and behavioral responses to policies and scientific recommendations. The project also examines the roles of factors such as the severity of the pandemic, socio-economic condition, and existing value systems in these changes. The research will advance scientific understanding of basic human values, how people respond to science communications, and how best to design such communications to achieve important societal goals.

This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.