Preference-Relativity of Initial Conditions in Ethno-Territorial Disputes

In conflict bargaining models, variation in initial or status quo conditions is expected to have a significant impact—with better initial conditions making the status quo more acceptable and likely to persist, and worse initial conditions making crisis and conflict more likely. At the same time, the value and hence the effect of such variation in initial conditions is expected to vary with players’ preferences over the different possible bargaining outcomes. On the one hand, initial conditions and preferences are conceptually and theoretically distinct variables. On the other hand, preferences are expected to affect perceptions and valuations of initial conditions. Here we use conflict bargaining experiments in ethno-territorial conflict settings to investigate this relationship. We find that variation in preferences affects perception of initial conditions, and that preference-relativized characterization reduces the influence of variation in initial conditions—particularly by making factually better initial conditions seem more similar to factually worse ones, and as a result, cutting down the conflict-reducing effects of better initial conditions. Future experimental research should explore in greater detail how preferences are likely to influence perceptions, characterizations, and effects of initial conditions. The manner in which these relations are likely to map into real-world conditions—and thus into quasi-experimental research hypotheses and results—also merits further research.