有偏见的维和人员对建立信任的影响
IF 3.2
Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
引用次数: 0
摘要
没有偏见的第三方维和人员是否在冲突后建立了团体之间的信任？从理论上讲，我们指出，不偏不倚的维和人员在促进信任方面最为有效。为了分离偏见对信任的因果影响，我们在实验室环境中使用了迭代信任博弈。以前参与冲突的群体被置于一个他们选择信任或回报任何信任的环境中。我们的研究结果表明，随着时间的推移，有偏见的监督员会阻碍信任，而无偏见的监督员则会促进合作交流。调查结果突出了公正性是维和人员在冲突后建立信任的一个重要条件，从而为维和文献做出了贡献。本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
The Effect of Biased Peacekeepers on Building Trust
Do unbiased third-party peacekeepers build trust between groups in the aftermath of conflict? Theoretically, we point out that unbiased peacekeepers are the most effective at promoting trust. To isolate the causal effect of bias on trust, we use an iterated trust game in a laboratory setting. Groups that previously engaged in conflict are put into a setting in which they choose to trust or reciprocate any trust. Our findings suggest that biased monitors impede trust while unbiased monitors promote cooperative exchanges over time. The findings contribute to the peacekeeping literature by highlighting impartiality as an important condition under which peacekeepers build trust post-conflict.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。
去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Political Science
Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
