Eric Skoog Preferences Under Pressure Conflict, Threat Cues and Willingness to Compromise Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Zootissalen, EBC, Villavägen 9, Uppsala, Friday, 13 March 2020 at 10:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Associate Professor Thomas Zeitzoff (American University, School of Public Affairs). Abstract Skoog, E. 2020. Preferences Under Pressure. Conflict, Threat Cues and Willingness to Compromise. Report / Department of Peace and Conflict Research 121. 66 pp. Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research. ISBN 978-91-506-2805-0. Understanding how preferences are formed is a key question in the social sciences. The ability of agents to interact with each other is a prerequisite for well-functioning societies. Nevertheless, the process whereby the preferences of agents in conflict are formed have often been black boxed, and the literature on the effects of armed conflict on individuals reveals a great variation in terms of outcomes. Sometimes, individuals are willing to cooperate and interact even with former enemies, while sometimes, we see outright refusal to cooperate or interact at all. In this dissertation, I look at the role of threat in driving some of these divergent results. Armed conflict is rife with physical threats to life, limb and property, and there has been much research pointing to the impact of threat on preferences, attitudes and behavior. Research in the field of evolutionary psychology has revealed that threat is not a singular category, but a nuanced phenomenon, where different types of threat may lead to different responses. I argue that by taking a more nuanced approach to threat, drawing on theories from the field of evolutionary psychology, some of the variance in outcomes can be explained. In particular, some commonly observed features of protracted conflicts, such as seemingly indivisible issues and parochialism may be moderated by threat. In the four essays, I address this from both a theoretical and empirical point of view. In Essay I, I illustrate in a formal bargaining setting how threats can lead actors to prefer risky all-or-nothing gambles to division schemes, preventing bargaining solutions to be found. In the second essay (Essay II), I show that willingness to make compromises with members of other groups are not contingent on group affiliation alone, but rather on the expected reciprocity of that group. Furthermore, characteristics of others beyond group can also affect pro-sociality. Based on a threat management perspective, me and my coauthors in Essay III show that non-threatening social categories, such as women or the elderly, are shown higher levels of altruism, also when there individuals are outgroup members. Exposure to violence can even increase altruism across group lines, but only to these non-threatening groups. Finally, in Essay IV, I show that those who experience post-traumatic growth as a result of traumatic events reverse the standard loss aversion people generally display, even showing gain-seeking preferences. Together, these results point to the importance of bringing in a more nuanced conceptualization of the role of threat in the study of peace and conflict. Even in the most brutal and destructive conflicts, humans are able to cooperate, also across group lines. However, for this cooperation to function, managing the threats in conflict is of central importance. Keywords: Evolutionary psychology, Conflict, Threat perception, Social preferences Eric Skoog, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Box 514, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden. © Eric Skoog 2020 ISSN 0566-8808 ISBN 978-91-506-2805-0 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-403234 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-403234) To those who came before me List of Essays This thesis is based on the following essays, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I Skoog, Eric (2020). Divide or Conquer? Deep Rationality and Seemingly Indivisible Issues as a Cause of Conflict. Unpublished manuscript. An earlier version was presented at the 58th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Baltimore MD, USA, 22-25 February 2017. II Skoog, Eric (2020). Indirect reciprocity and tradeoff paradigms in the wake of violent intergroup conflict. Unpublished manu- script. An earlier version was presented at the 59th Annual Con- vention of the International Studies Association, San Francisco, CA, USA, 4-7 April 2018. III Hall, Jonathan, Eric Skoog and Dogukan Cansin Karakus (2020). Kindness in the aftermath of cruelty? The effect of exposure to war-time trauma on altruism across social categories. Un- published manuscript. An earlier version was presented at the 51th Peace Science Society International North American Meet- ing, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2-4 November 2017. IV Skoog, Eric (2020). The Vagaries of Valuation. How post-trau- matic growth impacts psychological responses to gains and losses. Unpublished manuscript. An earlier version was pre- sented at the 60th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 27-30 March 2019. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 13 Definitions of the central concepts ............................................................... 16 Preferences, pro-sociality and compromise ......................................... 17 Threat, threat perception, and threat cues ............................................ 18 Intergroup armed conflict: ................................................................... 20 Previous literature ......................................................................................... 21 Conflict and its effects on society ........................................................ 21 Individual level effects of conflict exposure........................................ 23 Parochialism in conflict ....................................................................... 25 The role of threat in parochial attitudes ............................................... 27 Theoretical framework .................................................................................. 30 Methodology and empirical strategy............................................................. 38 Presenting the essays..................................................................................... 45 Essay I.................................................................................................. 46 Essay II ................................................................................................ 47 Essay III ............................................................................................... 47 Essay IV ............................................................................................... 48 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 49 Avenues for future research ................................................................. 51 Policy implications .............................................................................. 52 References ..................................................................................................... 54 Acknowledgements This dissertation would scarcely amount to a thing were it not for my super- visors, Magnus Öberg and Hanne Fjelde, who have been there as support, sounding boards – and indeed disciplinarians when needed to – throughout the entire process. Whatever issue, whether milestone or minor inconvenience, you have been excellent mentors and guides into the mystical land that is the academic world. Magnus – your advise when I first started to always read broadly and not get stuck in an intellectual silo has in no small part contributed to the direction this dissertation has taken. Your calm, down-to-earth and prag- matic approach has been invaluable for a mildly manic-depressive character such as myself, while still encouraging me to address the Big Questions, and seek out new and untrodden paths of scientific inquiry. Hanne – no matter which tangential (at best) or outlandish (at worst) line of reasoning I have me- andered down, your comments have always been clear-headed, to-the-point, impeccably structured and relevant. Knowing all too well my own tendency to sometimes go tightrope-walking over the chasm of chaos, I am greatly in- debted to your ability to offer staunch support for my many stunts, yet always being able to pull me back up and set me on the right path as soon as my stride got too wobbly. Jonathan Hall has in many ways been my ”unofficial third supervisor”, since he first invited me into the project that would also form the basis for the empirical part of my dissertation, back when I had just started my PhD. Through our multiple collaborations, I have been able to work on many and varying topics and issues, and through successes and struggles (remember Heroku?), your enthusiasm, energy and support has been truly inspiring. The dissertation has also benefitted immensely from the persistent scrutiny, ques- tioning and encouragement of the members of the Monday group (lately on Wednesdays): Håvard Hegre, Nina von Uexkull, Nynke Salverda, Colin Walch, Niklas Karlén, Karin Johansson, Sophia Hatz, Ida Rudolfsen, Stefan Döring, David Randahl, Mihai Croicu, Kristina Petrova, Gudlaug Olafsdottir and (briefly) Annkatrin Tritschoks. On a more personal note,