The Irredeemability of the Past: Determinants of Reconciliation and Revenge in Post-Conflict Settings

Abstract Durable peace after violent conflict where enemies take over territory often requires reintegration of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who are suspected of collaboration with the enemy. Citizens must also refrain from vengeance lest the cycle of violence renew. We lack understanding of what drives tendencies towards reconciliation versus revenge in conflict settings. Can those suspected of collaboration mitigate accusations of past wrongs through attempts at redemption? We run two conjoint experiments embedded within a large-N face-to-face survey across three areas of Iraq (n=4,592) experiencing the return or resettlement of IDPs. We find that signalling rehabilitation and gaining sponsorship of trusted authorities have little to no impact on reconciliation and revenge in Iraq; past behaviors are highly predictive of citizens' attitudes towards IDPs. Less reconciliatory and more vengeful motivations are expressed towards acts higher in severity and volition. Analyses employing cognitive and emotional statistical mediators further demonstrate that past behavior shapes justice intuitions because it simultaneously activates a past-oriented moral condemnation and a future-oriented heuristic assessment of the value and risks of associating with the IDP. Our results suggest that peace requires careful accounting of crimes committed and current strategies for redemption of accused collaborators may not be effective in war torn contexts.