This paper investigates the effects of war experiences across three different levels (individuals, groups, and contexts) on moral judgments related to violations of humanitarian norms. Competing hypotheses derived from different theoretical perspectives are empirically evaluated. Social psychological studies of war traditionally highlight a reversal of morality and group norms justifying violence against outgroups. Rationalistic models insist on the importance of realistic costs on the choice of individuals. As a complement to these traditions, we suggest that situations in which risks are generalized across group boundaries tend to provoke a strengthening of principles, such as humanitarian norms, that enable the protection of the material and symbolic integrity of a community. Multilevel analyses of the international People on War survey dataset (N = 8,121) show that support for the ingroup's struggle, at both individual and group levels, predicts stronger justification of violence. Simultaneously, at the context level, generalization of war-related risks predicts stronger condemnation of violations of humanitarian principles. These findings are consistent with a collective vulnerability model and, only in part, with the intractable conflict model.

In this article, we introduce spatially weighted context data as a new approach for studying the contextual dimension of factors that shapes social behavior and collective worldviews. First, we briefly discuss the current contribution of multilevel regression to the study of contextual effects. We subsequently provide a formal definition of spatially weighted context data, as a

Levels of support for just world beliefs among young adults (N = 598) from four ex-Yugoslavian countries-Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Slovenia-were compared, taking into account victimization experiences and the general belief in a just world. Being a victim affected an individual's belief in a just world in the two less economically favored contexts: Victims of exclusion in Macedonia and victims of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina were less likely to believe in a just world than non-victims. These victimization variables partly explained why the mean scores of these two countries were less than those of the two others. A deleterious effect of cumulative negative events on belief in a just world was identified, in parallel with a lower endorsement of the belief when the first victimization occurred more recently.

No abstract