This article asks which kinds of alleged wartime perpetrators voters are willing to support and why, focusing on civilian-targeting during and after conflict. Using a conjoint survey in Colombia that presents hypothetical former combatants running for office, the study tests a framework grounded in dyadic morality: voters assess alleged perpetrators by inferences about integrity and competence, with security competence proposed as the most salient competence in civilian-targeting contexts.
Conjoint survey in Colombia Dyadic-morality framework Integrity attributes shape preferences
Data and methods
The author uses a conjoint survey administered in Colombia that shows respondents profiles of hypothetical former combatants running for office. The design varies attributes tied to alleged involvement in civilian violence and to candidate competence, allowing comparison of how different traits influence respondent choices.
Main findings
Respondents’ preferences are sensitive to attributes the author links to integrity: voters are more likely to support candidates who violated less strict norms, who exhibited less agency in the alleged acts, and whose causal connection to victims is less clear. Contrary to the author’s expectation, attributes associated with security competence mattered less than broader indicators of competence.
- Integrity-related attributes reduced support when they signaled stronger wrongdoing.
- Security competence proved less decisive than other competence indicators, according to the conjoint results.
