Better not talk? A mixed-methods experimental analysis of avoiding sensitive issues in post-conflict settings

Abstract

Ex-combatants, war victims, and violence-affected community members are typically forced to live together as neighbors in post-conflict settings. Cases all over the world accumulate evidence on the fact that living together after war is a far from a harmonic endeavor, and individuals usually rely on contention mechanisms to keep on with their daily lives while in proximity of former and present-day antagonists. While decades-long academic research has unveiled a series of favorable conditions under which interactions might generate positive effects on intergroup dispositions, they usually prescribe focusing less on touching upon divisive issues, and more on emphasizing in potentially bonding commonalities. By means of a randomized controlled experiment with former war antagonists in Colombia, we set to explore whether avoidance or addressing of the most sensitive issues affecting intergroup relations yield better results in terms of attitude change under favorable conditions. Experimental effects show that perspective-giving protocols are capable of containing polarization tendencies in intergroup discussions even when participants are incentivized to directly address their co-existence problems, while qualitative analysis points out at silences and other avoidance mechanisms as the participants’ key strategies to contain conflict when contentious topics flare up during discussions.