THE LEGACY OF VIOLENCE: EXPERIENCE WITH CIVIL WAR AND SUPPORT FOR REFUGEES

How does the experience of political violence by members of the host community influence attitudes towards refugees? I draw on theories from social psychology and comparative politics to demonstrate the impact of political violence on preferences for migrants. Specifically, I shed light on how an individual's past experience with civil war shapes their attitudes towards refugees. Existing work suggests that exposure to conflict will lead to prosocial behavior. I test my argument using a conjoint experiment embedded in a survey where I ask respondents to evaluate three pairs of refugee profiles, including their reasons for migration. Respondents then decide which of those profiles should be granted refugee status based on the attributes presented. My analysis shows that those exposed to civil war are more prosocial and show a much higher support for refugees in comparison to those who were not exposed to conflict. However, contrary to the expectations set by post-traumatic growth theory that those with a similar experience as refugees will show a higher preference for those refugees with whom they share an experience, I do not find that individuals exposed to civil war show a significant preference for refugees fleeing conflict over other category of migrants. These results ask us to question the implication of different refugee categorizations on attitudes and behavior towards migrants. Although relevant for public policy and resource distribution, for the ordinary person, migrant categories might not much of an effect, especially if all migrants are perceived to be the same. Furthermore, these results inform policy approaches for reducing prejudice, increasing prosocial behavior towards refugees and promoting social cohesion.