Public Attitudes and Political Behavior in Times of Conflict

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

In what ways do experiences and perceptions of violence--- civil or interstate conflict, terrorism, and/or mass state repression--shape the attitudes, preferences and behaviors of ordinary citizens? This is not a new question for political scientists (Abramowitz 1989; Box-Steffensmeier 1996; De Mesquita and Siverson 1995) but one that has seen a recent rise in interest and development (Bauer et al. 2016; Daly 2018; DiCicco and Fordham 2018; García-Ponce 2016; Getmansky and Zeitzoff 2014; Grossman et al. 2015; Hadzic et al. 2017; Kopstein and Wittenberg 2018; Liendo and Braithwaite 2018; Tomz et al. 2017). Few scholars have been able to isolate and examine the potential effects of experiences or perceptions of escalating violence on attitudes and behavior.
Recent scholarship is pushing the boundaries of accepted theories by collecting and combining a variety of new data (event data, historical data, experimental data, and panel survey data over periods of escalating violence). This panel showcases some of these developments whilst employing an inter-regional and comparative approach. Thus, this panel will present four papers, all of which use new methodological tools, data and theoretical approaches in order to facilitate the analysis of the effects of experiences or perceptions of violence. All of the papers are exploring cutting edge methods and research design in studying the effects of violence on political preferences or behaviors.
In the first paper, Sonin and Wright explore whether and how information campaigns about particular conflicts can change citizen behaviors and attitudes. In highly original approach they match military surveys from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan with newly declassified intelligence records to conduct their own geographic quasi-experiment. They that citizen exposure to information campaigns not only changes their behaviors, but also messaging exposure has an effect on their preferences increasing their tolerance for Taliban reintegration.
Employing an original panel survey data (combined with geographic data accounting for proximity and/or experiences of conflict), in the second paper, Onuch, Hale and Colton assess the extent to which factors related to the war in Ukraine influenced voting in the 2014 presidential and parliamentary elections. Testing theories around wartime rallying effects, as well as wartime demobilization, they find that factors related to the conflict do not drive either electoral behavior. Instead they demonstrate that primarily economic security (as well as and feelings of being represented on the ballot and exposure to media) are more significant in driving both rallying and exit behavior.
In the third paper, Lankina and Tertytchnaya employ an innovative author-assembled historical dataset- combining it with a contemporary survey experiment to analyze the implications of historical repression on future cross-class alliances during post-Soviet Russia political mobilization.
Finally, Kupatadze, Zeitzoff, and Zhukov examine theories
of how armed conflict impacts public attitudes toward the state. Using a field survey experiment in eastern Ukraine in 2017 they find, that priming people to think of corruption, surprisingly generates an increase in pro-government attitudes and decreases support for the Russian army. In contrast reminding people about the conflict itself decreases pro-government attitudes and increases negative views towards the state.
The authors have been explicitly asked to consider their cases in comparative perspective both temporally and geographically. And question what is unique about the selected case and methodological approach and what aspects travel across cases, space and time.

This panel is a good fit with APSA’s 2019 theme of ‘Populism and Privilege’. All papers are concerned with the views and experiences of ordinary citizens during times of conflict, views that certain elite actor want to not only shape but even manipulate - be it in Afghanistan or eastern Ukraine. The Kupatadze, Zeitzoff, and Zhukov; Sonin and Wright and in-part Onuch, Hale and Colton; papers also all examine the role ‘information’ primes or manipulations on attitudes and behavior.

Finally, our proposed panel has very good mix of independent, earlier career, mid-career and senior scholars and has a good gender balance. We feel that this panel will not only be of great interest to a variety of scholars attending APSA but also will help develop new research agendas in the study of effects of violence on attitudes and behaviors in political science and beyond.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 11: Comparative Politics

Individual Presentations

• Information Ops Increase Security Cooperation & Support for Reintegration - Austin Wright, University of Chicago; Konstantin Sonin, New Economic School/CEFIR

• The Impact of War on Voting Behavior? The Case of Ukraine - Olga Onuch, University of Manchester; Henry E. Hale, George Washington University; Timothy J. Colton, Harvard University

• How the Salience of Corruption vs Conflict Influence Attitudes Towards the State - Alexander Kupatadze, Kings College London; Thomas Zeitzoff, American University; Yuri M. Zhukov, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

• Historical CrossClass Alliances in AntiRegime Mobilization: Case of Russia - Tomila Lankina, London School of Economics and Political Science; Katerina Tertytchnaya, University College London

Chair

• Nadiya Kravets Harvard University

Discussant

• Jeffrey Kopstein University of California, Irvine