Risk tolerance during conflict: Evidence from Aleppo, Syria
| Author | Vera Mironova,Loubna Mrie,Sam Whitt |
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318824632 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Risk tolerance during conflict: Evidence
from Aleppo, Syria
Vera Mironova
Department of Economics, Harvard University
Loubna Mrie
Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, New York University
Sam Whitt
Department of Political Science, High Point University
Abstract
When war breaks out, how important are risk preferences to explaining why some individuals stay in conflict zones
while others take flight? We examine risk tolerance among rebel combatants and civilians in Aleppo, Syria using a
variation of the Eckel-Grossman Choice Game. Field work in Syria was conducted in 2013–14 with a total of 232
participants to include both Syrian civilians and active rebel fighters in Aleppo and Idlib Province, as well as among
Syrian refugees in neighboring Turkey. Compared to Syrians in other locations, people in rebel-held territory of
Aleppo, both combatants and non-combatants, are significantly more risk tolerant. We consider possible explana-
tions for elevated risk preferences in Aleppo based on self-selection, adaptive learning, a sense of self-efficacy to affect
future outcomes, conflict-related grievances, and in-group solidarity. Our analysis suggests that self-selection based
on access to resources and a strong sense of self-efficacy may explain higher propensity for risk-taking. Overall, our
results speak to a plausible sorting mechanism during conflict where risk averse individuals select out of conflict,
while highly risk tolerant individuals are more prone to discount the inherent dangers of remaining in conflict zones.
Our results provide new micro-level explanation for why some societies become mired in conflict traps involving
highly risk tolerant fighting communities.
Keywords
civil war, conflict, insurgency, rebel groups, risk preferences, Syria
Introduction
When facing violence, how important are risk prefer-
ences to explaining why some individuals stay in conflict
zones and take up arms while others take flight? Are
combatants naturally more risk tolerant than non-com-
batants? And which is the riskier gamble: staying in a
combat zone or leaving one? Though risk preferences are
often implied in various conflict literatures, more clari-
fication is needed. At the micro-level, the literature on
military mobilization commonly focuses on selective
incentives, grievances, and social sanctioning for explain-
ing who fights and who does not, often with mixed
results (Humphreys & Weinstein, 2008). Research on
civilians in conflict is usually divided between civilians
held captive by combatants on one hand and the blurring
of lines between civilians and combatants on the other
(Kalyvas, 2006; Wood, 2003; Fabbe, Hazlett & Sinmaz-
demir, 2017), while the literature on refugee movement
often emphasizes economic means and opportunity and
the threat of violence to explain who stays in conflict
zones and who flees (Adhikari, 2013). We attempt to
bridge these literatures by focusing on risk preferences to
understand why people stay and fight in conflict zones
Corresponding author:
swhitt@highpoint.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2019, Vol. 56(6) 767–782
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343318824632
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
while othersflee. Based on field research in the caseof war-
torn Syria,we examine risk preferencesamong civilians and
combatantsin the rebel held and contested areas of eastern
Aleppo using a variation of the Eckel-Grossman (2002,
2008) choice game from behavioral economics. We find
that risk tolerance is e levated among combatants and non-
combatants in rebel-held Aleppo compared to people in
other locations in Syria and to Syrian refugees abroad in
neighboring Turkey. Self-reported rationales for leaving,
staying, and fighting help validate the belief that exiting
the conflict is a far saferstrategy than staying and/or fight-
ing. Our results suggest a plausible sorting mechanism
where risk averse individuals flee conflict, while risk toler-
ant individuals are more likely to stay and fight.
Research on risk preferences: From the
lab to the field
Individual decisionmaking under conditions of risk and
uncertainty has been an ongoing puzzle for the social
sciences (von Neuman & Morgenstern, 1947; Arrow,
1965). This is in part because conventional explanations
of risk-seeking behavior based on expected utility models
are often empirically violated (Starmer, 2000). Instead,
risk-taking behavior appears to have important psycho-
logical, environmental, and possibly genetically trans-
mitted components. For example, Kahneman &
Tversky (1979) illustrate how risk propensities can be
altered by framing effects, and people become more risk
tolerant when facing prospective losses. However, Bins-
wanger (1980) and Holt & Laury (2002) find that peo-
ple generally tend to have stronger preferences for risk
aversion than risk-loving behavior. Eckel & Grossman
(2008) show that women tend to be more risk averse
than men in risk-taking experiments. Apicella et al.
(2008) find that risk-taking is positively associated with
increased levels of testosterone in males, which has also
been linked to overconfidence in one’s self-efficacy and
aggressive behavior (Johnson et al., 2006). Furthermore,
Dohmen et al. (2012) find evidence of intergenerational
transmission of risk preferences from parents and local
environments where people live via positive assortative
mating. Becker et al. (2014) suggest that heterogeneity in
risk preferences around the world can be traced to
genetic diversity linked to ancient migration patterns.
1
Risk propensities have also been examined cross-
culturally using a range of behavioral and survey
instruments. Andersen et al. (2010) find good congru-
ence between lab and field experiments on risk. Dohmen
et al. (2011) observe consistency between general attitu-
dinal and behavioral measures of risk-taking. Vieider
et al. (2015) also find strong evidence of generalizable
risk preferences using survey and experimental risk
instruments in a comparison of 30 countries, making
cross-cultural comparison of risk possible.
Researchers are increasingly studying risk propensities
under real world conditions of threat and uncertainty
linked to natural disasters and conflict. Cameron & Shah
(2015) find evidence of elevated risk-taking in the after-
math of severe flooding and earthquakes. Eckel,
El-Gamal & Wilson (2009) observe heightened risk tol-
erance among evacuees following Hurricane Katrina.
Kim & Lee (2014) find that children who were exposed
to violence during the Korean War have long-term risk
aversion five decades after the war. Callen et al. (2014)
offer evidence that exposure to violence and fearful recol-
lections creates a ‘premium on certainty’ (risk aversion)
in Afghanistan. Jakiela & Ozier (2015) show that indi-
viduals in the aftermath of Kenyan electoral violence are
also more risk averse. In contrast, Voors et al. (2012) find
that victims of violence in Burundi are more risk
tolerant.
At present, the literature on violence is only beginning
to consider the importance of risk preferences to under-
standing micro-level behavior. However, risk preferences
of combatants and civilians during violence and the
effects of violence on those preferences remains ambig-
uous and deserves further investigation. Our study con-
siders risk preferences under conditions of ongoing
conflict in Syria. Our research is one of the first to con-
sider the role that risk tolerance might play in differen-
tiating among combatants, non-combatant civilians, and
refugees in civil war.
Risk-taking during conflict
To understand risk preferences, we begin with the
assumptions of the expected utility model, which pre-
dicts that risk-taking is a function of the expected value
of possible outcomes. Key to the model is the ability to
calculate the relative costs and benefits of different
choices and the probability that a choice will lead to a
desired outcome. Of course, the costs of remaining in
conflict zones could be quite high: psychological trauma,
physical pain and suffering, and possibly death. It may
also be difficult to assess relative risks and probabilities of
adverse outcomes because it is unclear what tangible
benefits one might receive or what costs might be
1
Research on variation in D2 and D4 dopamine receptors also
suggest a relationship between genetic variation and human cultural
diversity (Harpending & Cochran, 2002).
768 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 56(6)
To continue reading
Request your trial