Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

This study seeks to contribute to the growing literature examining the impact of exposure to violence on public support for peace. In particular, it delves into emerging studies that propose to disaggregate the concept of "exposure to violence" and examine whether variation in experiences of violence shapes civilian attitudes toward peace. For this purpose, the research of Kreiman and Masullo (2020), so far the only one to study the relationship between the identity of the perpetrator of one-sided violence and public support for peace, is examined. In order to do so, it is decided to examine the explanatory power of the proposed theoretical argument, which is based on the assumption that populations prioritize their security and base their decisions on the reduction of future violence. Kreiman and Masullo (2020) theorize that the identity of the perpetrator influences the assessment of future victimization by the population depending on whether or not it is part of the negotiation table, which conditions public support for peace. The theoretical expectations are that If the civilian population has been mostly victimized by the faction that is negotiating the termination of the conflict, it will tend to show higher support for the peace process. 

To empirically test the hypothesis suggested above, a small N-case study of two Colombian municipalities highly exposed to violence is carried out: Bojayá (Chocó) and Granada (Antioquia). Each victimized by a different perpetrator. Using the Structure-Focused Comparison methodology, empirical evidence has been found to be consistent with the study's theoretical expectations.