Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
How do victims respond to distinct dimensions of transitional justice? While the conventional wisdom suggests that transitional justice policies address victim grievances and advance justice, the micro-foundations of these assertions have rarely been rigorously tested. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct an original survey of a rare sample of 2,000 victims in Colombia and Argentina - two cases whose differences allow us to consider where and when the conventional wisdom might apply. While in Argentina state repression ceased decades ago and transitional justice policies have become an institutionalized response to the past, in Colombia, peace and transitional justice implementation are more recent developments. We hypothesize that apologies and severe prison sentences will diminish anger and retributive desires while denials and lenient trial outcomes will have the opposite effects. When we present respondents with hypothetical transitional justice scenarios through a conjoint experiment, we find strong support for our expectations in both countries. However, after victims watch a randomly-selected real-world video capturing pivotal moments in transitional justice trials, responses often contradict our hypotheses. We argue that one reason we uncover a discrepancy between hypothetical and actual experiences – particularly where violence is recent and emotions are raw – is because trials provide three types of information: 1) about perpetrators' innocence or guilt; 2) about perpetrators' acceptance of responsibility; and 3) about the judicial system. In short, actual transitional justice experiences can reveal conflicting information that may complicate legacies and perceptions of the past.