Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-01T10:21:29.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Biased Peacekeepers on Building Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

Jared Oestman  and
Rick K. Wilson Open the ORCID record for Rick K. Wilson [Opens in a new window]
Jared Oestman
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Rick K. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
*
Corresponding author: Rick K. Wilson; Email: rkw@rice.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do unbiased third-party peacekeepers build trust between groups in the aftermath of conflict? Theoretically, we point out that unbiased peacekeepers are the most effective at promoting trust. To isolate the causal effect of bias on trust, we use an iterated trust game in a laboratory setting. Groups that previously engaged in conflict are put into a setting in which they choose to trust or reciprocate any trust. Our findings suggest that biased monitors impede trust while unbiased monitors promote cooperative exchanges over time. The findings contribute to the peacekeeping literature by highlighting impartiality as an important condition under which peacekeepers build trust post-conflict.

Keywords

peacekeepingmonitoringcooperationconflict resolutiontrust game
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Winter 2023 , pp. 426 - 437
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

References

Abbink, Klaus, Brandts, Jordi, Herrmann, Benedikt, and Orzen, Henrik. 2010. Intergroup Conflict and Intra-Group Punishment in an Experimental Contest Game. American Economic Review 100(1): 420–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbink, Klaus and Harris, Donna. 2019. In-Group Favouritism and out-Group Discrimination in Naturally Occurring Groups. PloS One 14(9): e0221616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderhub, Vital, Engelmann, Dirk, and Guth, Werner. 2002. An Experimental Study of the Repeated Trust Game with Incomplete Information. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48(2): 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Michal, Fiala, Nathan, and Levely, Ian. 2018. Trusting Former Rebels: An Experimental Approach to Understanding Reintegration after Civil War. The Economic Journal 128(613): 1786–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Michelle, and Kathman, Jacob D. 2014. United Nations Bias and Force Commitments in Civil Conflicts. The Journal of Politics 76(2): 350–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Joyce E., Dickhaut, John W., and McCabe, Kevin. 1995. Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1): 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Robert A. 2019. International Intervention and the Rule of Law after Civil War: Evidence from Liberia. International Organization 73(2): 365–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Robert A. 2021. Un Peacekeeping and the Rule of Law. American Political Science Review 115(1): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E., González, Roberto, Love, Gregory J., Miranda, Daniel Andres, and Navia, Patricio D.. 2022. Ethnicity or Policy? The Conditioning of Intergroup Trust in the Context of Ethnic Conflict. Political Psychology 43(2): 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, R. E., and Love, G. J.. 2013. The Politics of Interpersonal Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach. Political Behavior 35(1): 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E., and Love, Gregory J.. 2018. Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 115–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E., Love, Gregory J., and Young, Daniel J.. 2020. Political Competition, Partisanship, and Interpersonal Trust under Party Dominance: Evidence from Post-Apartheid South Africa. Journal of Experimental Political Science 7(2): 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassar, Alessandra, Grosjean, Pauline, and Whitt, Sam. 2013. Legacies of Violence: Trust and Market Development. Journal of Economic Growth 18(3): 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Dufwenberg, M.. 2006. Promises and Partnership. Econometrica 74(6): 1579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle-Warnick, J. and Slonim, R. L.. 2004. The Evolution of Strategies in a Repeated Trust Game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55(4): 553–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J., Pasquale, Benjamin J., and Samii, Cyrus. 2014. Civil War and Social Cohesion: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 604–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Grant M. and Young, Lauren E.. 2017. Cooperation, Information, and Keeping the Peace: Civilian Engagement with Peacekeepers in Haiti. Journal of Peace Research 54(1): 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Nir, Bornstein, Gary, and Sagiv, Lilach. 2008. “In-Group Love” and “out-Group Hate” as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm.” Psychological Science 19(4): 405–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halevy, Nir, Weisel, Ori, and Bornstein, Gary. 2012. “In-Group Love” and “out-Group Hate” in Repeated Interaction between Groups.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25(2): 188–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Noel D. and Mislin, Alexandra A.. 2011. Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology 32(5): 865–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydd, Andrew H. 2006. When Can Mediators Build Trust? American Political Science Review 100(3): 449–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mironova, Vera and Whitt, Sam. 2017. International Peacekeeping and Positive Peace: Evidence from Kosovo. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(10): 2074–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomikos, William G. 2022. Peacekeeping and the Enforcement of Intergroup Cooperation: Evidence from Mali. The Journal of Politics 84(1): 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1993. The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival 35(1): 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoads, Emily Paddon. 2016. Taking Sides in Peacekeeping: Impartiality and the Future of the United Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scacco, Alexandra and Warren, Shana S.. 2018. Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria. American Political Science Review 112(3): 654–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smidt, Hannah M. 2020. United Nations Peacekeeping Locally: Enabling Conflict Resolution, Reducing Communal Violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(2–3): 344–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John. 1978. Social Categorization and Social Discrimination in the Minimal Group Paradigm. In Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Tajfel, H. London: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Westwood, Sean J., and Peterson, Erik. 2020. The Inseparability of Race and Partisanship in the United States. Political Behavior 44: 1–23.Google Scholar
Whitt, Sam, Wilson, Rick K., and Mironova, Vera. 2021. Inter-Group Contact and out-Group Altruism after Violence. Journal of Economic Psychology 86: 102420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick. 2023. Replication Data For: The Effect of Biased Peasekeepers on Building Trust. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/P2SPSD Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick K., and Eckel, Catherine C.. 2011. Trust and Social Exchange. In The Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H. and Lupia, Arthur. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Oestman and Wilson Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/P2SPSD
Link
Supplementary material: File

Oestman and Wilson supplementary material

Oestman and Wilson supplementary material

Download Oestman and Wilson supplementary material(File)
File 10 MB