Effects of social position on societal attributions of an asymmetric conflict

Traditionally, the study of peace and conflict has employed macro explanations such as social structure and state conditions. This article extends the discourse on peace and conflict by considering psychological conditions during a heated social conflict. The focus is on societal attribution, a cognitive process involving shared beliefs about the causes of societal events. The present study examines the effects of social positions on causal attributions in an asymmetric conflict that is taking place in the Philippines on the war-torn island of Mindanao. It was expected that causal attributions of the Mindanao war would differ between Christians and Muslims. Four hundred and thirty Muslims and Christians at Mindanao State University-Marawi stated their degree of agreement on belief statements about perceived intergroup inequality and ranked the three most important causes of the conflict in Mindanao. Results indicated that power inequality between groups is perceived only by the disadvantaged Muslim group, while members in the dominant social position were not sensitized to systemic issues. Findings also indicated intergroup disagreements about the causes of the war. The marginalized Muslims believed that structural problems, namely, displaced and landless Bangsa Moro (Muslim Nation) and loss of rights to self-determination were important origins of the conflict. On the other hand, the dominant Christian group attributed the Mindanao conflict to person-related causes like corruption of the mind and moral fiber, as well as sociocultural discrimination. Implications for attribution theory and the practice of peacemaking in asymmetric conflicts are discussed.