An official website of the United States government
Under what conditions do rebel organizations control territory during civil war? How do civilians influence the distribution of territorial control? Why do rebels invest in governance, and why do they target civilians with violence, in some locations but not others? This dissertation advances a political accountability theory to explain how civilians influence the distribution of territorial control and governance during civil war. Existing research explaining variation in rebel territorial control and behavior have emphasized structural and organizational factors, identity politics, economic conditions, and geography. However, the classic insurgency literature and recent counterinsurgency doctrine emphasize the importance of securing civilian support and protecting the population to achieving military objectives in civil war. If true, civilians retain at least some power over rebel personnel. The accountability theory of rebel conduct provides a unified framework linking inter-related conflict processes associated with rebel groups’ territorial control, governance, and strategic use of violence during civil war. It argues that community collective action capacity, the ease with which communities facilitate collective action to pursue common interests, influences the distribution territorial control and belligerent conduct during civil war. The empirical strategy draws upon complementary quantitative and qualitative methods to test the accountability against plausible alternatives using village-level data from the communist insurgency in the Philippines. The results provide robust support for the accountability theory over plausible alternatives, and yield policy implications for peace-building and economic development in conflict-affected states.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 27, 2026
A fundamental cognitive bias increases support for violence against civilians in Gaza and Israel
Abstract War is often characterised by indiscriminate violence against civilians. It is critical to understand why ordinary people might support acts such as ethnic cleansing or genocide, as popular support facilitates campaigns of indiscriminate violence. Theory suggests that support may rest on ideologies and narratives that portray the target group as less than human and threatening, thereby creating a moral mandate for killing. However, there has been little empirical study of these mechanisms during outbreaks of extreme violence. Here we report studies carried out in an ongoing campaign of violence in Gaza and Israel (n = 2462), showing that alongside such narratives, popular support for violence against civilians derives from a common cognitive error we term the hate-motive bias: the tendency to overestimate hate motives, and underestimate defensive motives, of outgroup aggression. Hate-motive bias predicted support for various forms of violence against civilians even while statistically accounting for other predictors such as ideological orientation, dehumanisation of outgroups and perceived threat. Our results suggest that a common attribution bias may contribute to ordinary citizens supporting behaviour they might typically deplore. Efforts to correct this bias may offer a behavioural science lever for reducing popular support for violence against civilians.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1949467
- PAR ID:
- 10650023
- Publisher / Repository:
- Research Square
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Building on recent developments in the literature, this article addresses a prominent research question in the study of civil conflict: what explains violence against civilians? We use a novel computational model to investigate the strategic incentives for victimization in a network setting; one that incorporates civilians’ strategic behavior. We argue that conflicts with high network competition—where conflict between any two actors is more likely—lead to higher rates of civilian victimization, irrespective of the conflict's overall intensity or total number of actors. We test our theory in a cross-national setting using event data to generate measures of both conflict intensity and network density. Empirical analysis supports our model's finding that conflict systems with high levels of network competition are associated with a higher level of violence against the civilian population.more » « less
-
Abstract Humans use language toward hateful ends, inciting violence and genocide, intimidating and denigrating others based on their identity. Despite efforts to better address the language of hate in the public sphere, the psychological processes involved in hateful language remain unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that morality and hate are concomitant in language. In a series of studies, we find evidence in support of this hypothesis using language from a diverse array of contexts, including the use of hateful language in propaganda to inspire genocide (Study 1), hateful slurs as they occur in large text corpora across a multitude of languages (Study 2), and hate speech on social-media platforms (Study 3). In post hoc analyses focusing on particular moral concerns, we found that the type of moral content invoked through hate speech varied by context, with Purity language prominent in hateful propaganda and online hate speech and Loyalty language invoked in hateful slurs across languages. Our findings provide a new psychological lens for understanding hateful language and points to further research into the intersection of morality and hate, with practical implications for mitigating hateful rhetoric online.more » « less
-
Abstract We show that the bicategory of finite groupoids and right-free permutation bimodules is a quotient of the bicategory of Mackey 2-motives introduced in [2], obtained by modding out the so-called cohomological relations. This categorifies Yoshida’s theorem for ordinary cohomological Mackey functors and provides a direct connection between Mackey 2-motives and the usual blocks of representation theory.more » « less
-
Using novel data, we provide the first panoramic view of U.S. Black movement protest events as reported in U.S. newswires between 1994 and 2010 and put our quantitative data into dialogue with qualitative accounts. Struggles during these years presaged the Black Lives protest waves of 2014 to 2016 and 2020. Protests increased after the 1995 Million Man March into 2001 but dropped abruptly after the 9/11 attacks. Collective action increased again at the end of the 2000s. Protests in response to police violence and other criminal-legal issues were major arenas of struggle and news coverage. Also common were issues of national identity including celebrations of Black history and Black solidarity, protests about Confederate symbols, and protests about White hate groups and hate crimes. Although Black people protested about a wide variety of issues, newswires focused disproportionately on incidents of police violence and perceived threats of Black violence. There is substantial continuity in issues, organizations, and activism between this earlier period and the Black Lives Movement of 2014 to 2020.more » « less
