 First of all I'm Jonathan Hall. I'm an assistant professor at Uppsala University. I teach on the social psychology of conflict but mainly I focus on research and in particular in general my research is about the effects of displacement on psychosocial health but also political psychology. And in particular I've been using surveys, field experiments and qualitative interviews in order to get at this linkage between displacement, both migration and the effects of violence and exposure to violence and war-related losses on political psychology. That's my general focus. So I'm gonna start with my previous research which has been focused on a previous migration crisis. So this obviously isn't the first and prior to 2015 a lot of people thought of the Bosnian war as being the largest migration crisis that to rock Europe since the Second World War. And my focus of over the last six or seven years has been on trying to understand the impact of migration, outward migration from Bosnia on political psychology and particular support for the ethos of conflict among refugees and displaced persons from Bosnia. Now my more current research is focused on this particular migration crisis and I'm studying a related set of questions based on some of the findings from that previous research doing field experiments and mixed methods involving surveys and interviews among refugees from Syria and Iraq. And I'll get to that a little bit. So the articles that I'm describing the findings of are at various points in the publication process and what I'll talk to you about is going from published to accepted to under revision to in progress to keep that in mind. So it becomes more tentative as time goes on but perhaps also more intriguing as it's newer data. So to give you a starting point from my previous research I was really intrigued during my doctoral studies that a lot of the public opinion research after Civil War tends to be conducted in in war affected societies you could say in wartime settings and in post war settings and for obvious reasons. But at the same time when there is mass violence you have massive displacement and this makes it difficult for that data to really say anything about large segments of nations that have been affected by conflict especially when they've been displaced outside the country of origin. So we really have this large gap in really trying to understand and have really solid data on the the political ideologies the public opinion in general of refugees. And this is a problem it's a problem because first of all there are a lot of unfounded assumptions I think in research in refugee studies but more in I think in the literature on civil war about the diaspora about refugee communities there's a lot of research on for example when you think of refugees in civil war studies it's often the debates about refugee warriors or the spread of international conflict or the diaspora mobilization that is brought into focus. But at the same time we don't have much especially micro level you know individual level data to really understand what's going on within these communities and especially comparative data to really see what should be the baseline of comparison are you comparing let's say a migrant from Syria living in Sweden with his neighbor or her neighbor that's what was born in Sweden are you comparing them with people from Syria in other settlement countries or in in the country of origin. So we need comparable data we need more systematic data in order to really know anything about what is what are the opinions of the refugee community and within the refugee community. So this is my starting point and from that I wanted to really provide a more careful theorization of two things. One is what are the implications for outward migration on for political ideology outward migration from this the society that has been racked by a civil war for example. And on the other hand what are the implications of the experience of life in the settlement country. So these are the two things that I'm going to focus on. And in particular I wanted to look at political ideology I ended up focusing especially on what we talk about as the ethos of conflict. This is a concept that is developed by Daniel Bartol and it really tries to capture sort of the ethos that develops in times of war. So basically I'm looking at what are the effects of outward migration life in the settlement country on support for the ethos of conflict. So to start then what is this ethos of conflict. Well we're talking about basically the set the interrelated set of societal beliefs that develop as a result of this stressful crisis situation. These are beliefs about the in-group, the in-group's goals, the goals of the out-group, perceptions of the legitimacy of in-group goals, the delegitimization of out-group goals, demonization oftentimes of the out-group, perceptions of in-group victimization at the hands of the out-group in terms of also the need for security and the means that are necessary to attain security. Also beliefs about for example the importance of unity, the importance of patriotism and even specific conceptualizations and understandings of peace. So you can think about this as a whole set of beliefs that are actually interlinked and interrelated and this ethos of conflict it develops in specific situations under specific conditions. So in a conflict, in a conflict crisis you could say, the situation is very chaotic. There's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of stress. You're perceiving speeches by political leaders, major actions taking place that are come to you as an individual through the media, through social media, through watching the news and seeing for example the movements of actors, killings taking place, rumors spreading about what's happening in your community, getting closer to your home and so on. This creates huge levels of uncertainty for people and so uncertainty also at the same time the conditions that this arise in are, while they create uncertainty, they also for example undermine your sense of self-esteem, a sense of positive identity. So this basically the set of conditions that give rise to the ethos of conflict are aggravating basic needs, basic needs for security, basic needs for certainty, basic needs for self-esteem and so on. And the ethos of conflict is something that actually helps people to function in their daily lives in this threatening environment. It helps to produce uncertainty to attach yourself to this ethos of conflict. It helps you to have a positive sense of self-esteem and in a comparison without groups. It helps you to make sense basically of an otherwise threatening and chaotic situation. So this is the ethos of conflict and these are some of the basic needs it meets for human beings on the individual level. But on the group level it also this ethos of conflict also enables groups to fight and attempt to win wars. So this is both meeting individual and group level needs within the context of the conflict. So this is the ethos of conflict. Now, and there's a wonderful and vibrant literature on this especially coming out of Israel which is good to attach to. And I wanted to understand sort of what's what are the implications then of outward migration from this setting. And the basic basic point I'm trying to make in in my previous papers on this is that you're no longer exposed to those societal conditions, the political conditions, the economic conditions, the social communication that gives rise to and also sustains that ethos of conflict even after the war ends. So the politics of collective memory can continue to to make this ethos of conflict intractable and difficult to change even after the war ends. But that's because the societal conditions are such that there's conducive to the ethos of conflict. If you think about Bosnia today, there's still talk that it's, you know, it's possible for this war to reemerge. The conflict itself is not over per se. But but if you migrate, you're not you're not actually exposed to those same conditions any longer. So on a fundamental level, we should expect that all else being equal outward migration from that situation could have positive effects in the sense of undermining support for the ethos of conflict. On the other hand, I wanted to think about what are the processes that take place in settlement countries and try to understand how would these shapes support for the ethos of conflict? And in particular, I wanted to focus then on what we all tend to think about, which is integration, but really what is integration and try to make it more of a careful concept more tightly defined. And here I wanted to look at two things, looking at the literature on assimilation and acculturation. I divided divided the concept into two components, one being socio economic integration, meaning labor market attachment, income, and so on. So basically, achieving parity with the local population in your settlement country. So this is socio economic assimilation. And on the other hand, acculturation processes, and that's a very interesting literature that one can explore. And in doing so, I found a very natural linkage between acculturation on the one hand and support for the ethos of conflict. And that is through identity complexity. So acculturation, you can think of in a simple way as being a way of resolving to basic issues. And on the one hand, it is how to what extent do I wish to maintain my cultural heritage? And on the other hand, to what extent do I want to interact with and engage with and identify with the dominant culture of the settlement country. And these two, the sort of resolving of these two questions kind of creates a matrix of four boxes, you could say on a basic level. One is, you could assimilate, meaning that you could downplay your cultural heritage, and focus instead on your attachment to the dominant cultural in the settlement country. On the other hand, you might have basically a separation strategy where you actually focus on maintaining your cultural heritage and distancing yourself from the dominant culture of the settlement country. In between these, you have something you that we call biculturalism or integration and integration in the acculturation sense. And that is where you actually value and seek to maintain both your heritage, and also seek to interact with and identify with the heritage culture. And the fourth box is they call marginalization, which is that you tend not to focus on maintaining your heritage. And you also do not strive to interact with and identify with the dominant culture. So you have these four boxes. And what's interesting in that literature, especially as you move into thinking about the issues like issues like prejudice, is that a acculturation then ends up being you can place it on a scale of complexity. You have more complex strategies of acculturation that you can pursue in terms of your identity. And you can have more simplistic aspects or strategies of acculturation. So for example, assimilation is a less complex strategy in terms of your identity than is biculturalism. And what we also know five minutes, wow, that went fast. So I'll try not to speed up, but instead try to simplify that to make that short is just simply that biculturalism is associated with identity complexity. And at the same time, identity complexity is associated with political tolerance towards outgroups, because when you attach yourself to multiple social identities, each of those comparisons are less important and have less evaluative significance for you. So when one of those categories is threatened, you have other resources to draw upon for your meeting your basic needs, basic needs, for example, positive identity. And so to make that long story short, and that's actually covering most of my previous research, I would say, on the case of Bosnia, what I do find when I did large scale surveys in representative surveys in both Bosnia, Herzegovina and in Sweden among refugees from the Bosnian war and also the larger Yugoslav population in Sweden, what I found was that those living in Sweden express less support for the ethos of conflict at the group level, meaning and this being the result perhaps as I argue of being extracted from those conditions that give rise to the ethos of conflict. On the other hand, socioeconomic assimilation is associated with reduced support for conflict and biculturalism is also associated with reduced support for when I say conflict, the ethos of conflict. It gets more nuanced than that. We can talk about also different versions of cultural heritage, which people maintain and that was an interesting finding. So the Yugoslav identity is alive and well in Sweden, whereas it's quite dead in Bosnia. So and that had positive implications for people's identity. So it's not just biculturalism, but the way that you can construe your own heritage in more or less complex ways. That can matter. So this is the overall focus of my previous research. Right now I'm conducting research on this current migration crisis trying to go a little further and examine looking at using field experiments this time, trying to understand trust and altruism. So trust and altruism are really the underpinnings of social cooperation in society. When you think about what what creates a smooth functioning society, we need trust and we need other regarding preferences or the desire to increase the well-being of others. This smooths all of our interactions in economic life and social life and so on. So this is the underpinnings of social cooperation, but what's the impact of warfare on social cooperation? So that's the starting point for this new project, but then I want to look at that across many different contexts and that's how it links to this previous literature. So I want to follow the impact of displacement and exposure to violence on trust and altruism. For example along the Syrian border in Gaziantep is where we're going to have one field site across Turkey to the seaborder to Europe within Greece, Germany and Sweden both in asylum centers and after the asylum process to look at how do the conditions in which people are living shape the relationship between exposure to violence on the one hand and social cooperation trust and altruism. Trust within groups, between groups, altruism within groups and between groups. And this is a dimension of my previous research, which I didn't mention, which is that, for example, in the literature on reconciliation, in the literature on political tolerance prejudice more generally, what we find across many, many, many contexts is that on the individual level people exposed to violence express greater support for the ethos of conflict. Right? And why is that the case? It's the corollary of what we talked about, what gives rise to the ethos of conflict at the group level, but on the individual level on the individual level. And this relates a bit to psychological health and physical health, which Sophie is going to talk about a bit later. But on the individual level, people exposed to violence experience psychological distress. And that leads to a greater perception of threat, right, posed by outsiders. You know, maybe I should be a bit careful now, right, that I have experienced this, maybe I should be more careful. And it also gives rise to an attachment to the ethos of conflict as a way of coping with this process, as you have greater need, right, to for the ethos of conflict, because it is a coping process, right, I draw upon this for support. It's so this group cohesion that you experience is can be a positive experience on some level for for people and especially for those that have been most exposed to threats and to violence and so on. So they draw upon the social and community resources in order to in order to cope with their experience of violence, right. But the thing is, that whole literature is really it's really studied in the context of armed conflict. And my thinking, my theory is that I think that it's actually the context in which this takes place. That is the determining factor. If you look in the literature and psychology in general on how people respond to violence, for example, there is a whole set of literature on post traumatic growth. So to contrast that with post traumatic stress, people can actually bounce back from these life threatening events to experience post traumatic growth. In wartime setting, that might look like cohesion, you could actually grow, you could actually become a better person in the eyes of your neighbors and so on. But that leads to cohesion within your group and polarization and distance to out groups. But that process is in a threatening environment. So what happens when you're in a situation of low threat, both at the situation in your home country changes over time, but also if you yourself are displaced to different environments, very threatening environments is one example, you can end up in key lists where the bombs are still falling, or you might end up in an asylum process, which is stressful, but not threatening on the in the same sense, or you might end up several years down the road integrating socioeconomically and in terms of acculturation in your settlement country. If it's a peaceful settlement country, these are very different contexts. And I think into that, in that setting, that exposure to violence could actually have pro social effects, even towards out group members. So since I have no more time left, I just mentioned one point, zero minutes, which is that we just collected new data on this new project. And just analyzing the basic this, the results from Sweden, among 100 participants in a large field experiment that we did in asylum centers, three asylum centers in Sweden, we find exactly that, that the greater the level of exposure to violence and losses as a result of the war, the more pro social behavior you express in the experiments that we've conducted towards both in group members and out group members. And it makes sense on some level on some level, because when you're not exposed to the threat anymore, you could see other victims as just victims of the same war rather than as an enemy or potential threat. That's all I had. Thank you.