Description

How susceptible are people in post-conflict societies to alternative narratives of the conflict? In this paper I report the results of a laboratory experiment conducted in July-August 2009 in Azerbaijan, a country that fought a brutal fratricidal war with neighbouring Armenia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, an event that has left a deep impression on both populations. Subjects were exposed to three narratives about the conflict that attribute blame to different actors. Narratives were presented either in written format or in the context of a group discussion. The results suggest that attitudes formed out of many years of exposure to a monolithic discourse are indeed sticky, but that certain appeals—and formats—are more effective than others. I find, counterintuitively, that exposure to narratives that are consistent with pre-existing views or that redirect blame away from an adversary and toward a third party are more effective in altering attitudes in a conciliatory direction than narratives that invoke ideas of mutual understanding and common identity. Narratives presented and discussed in a social context are more effective than ones in a written format that involve no discussion.