Bearing the burden of peace: intergroup attribution bias and public support for peace provisions

Abstract

What drives public support for peace provisions? Based on intergroup attribution theory, we argue that public support for peace provisions depends on “who bears the burden of peace,” with people wanting to protect their ingroup while holding the outgroup accountable. To examine this claim, we conducted a series of question-wording experiments with more than 1650 Azerbaijani participants shortly after a deadly resurgence of the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Our initial findings confirm that support for war crime punishments and monetary reparations decreases when the ingroup stands trial or must pay. Conversely, support increases when these same burdens fall on the outgroup. A follow-up study shows that these patterns persist for at least 6 months but also reveals a more nuanced perspective. Public support for peace provisions does not automatically decrease when the ingroup bears the cost or increase when the outgroup bears it; rather, it depends on the group-based implications of the provision under consideration. Taken together, our results underscore the importance of crafting and communicating peace provisions in a tailored manner and the potential of emphasizing burden sharing as an effective strategy for addressing intergroup hostilities and fostering sustainable peace.