A core function of contemporary states is to ensure the security of their citizens. Yet in many post-conflict settings, non-state actors provide security alongside the state, typically prioritizing their own ascriptive groups and potentially undercutting a sense of national political community. When do citizens prefer group-specific versus national security? While most studies focus on individual psychological factors, we argue that group-level characteristics also shape political preferences. Based on a conjoint experiment in Lebanon, we explore the relative appeal of group-specific versus national pledges to assure protection. We find that respondents view national security provision quite positively, while members of communities with stronger group-specific security simultaneously favor private provision. Individuals with closer ties to credible group security providers are also more likely to prefer those services. Citizens therefore do not see a clear trade-off between private and public protection, while group-specific legacies mediate heterogeneity in support for pluralist security provision.

中文翻译：

---

对冲突后国家“国民”的承诺：黎巴嫩的公共和私人安全提供

当代国家的核心职能是确保其公民的安全。然而，在许多冲突后环境中，非国家行为者与国家一起提供安全保障，通常优先考虑他们自己的归属群体，并可能削弱国家政治共同体的意识。公民什么时候更喜欢特定群体而不是国家安全？虽然大多数研究都关注个人心理因素，但我们认为群体层面的特征也会影响政治偏好。基于在黎巴嫩的一项联合实验，我们探讨了特定群体与国家承诺确保保护的相对吸引力。我们发现，受访者对国家安全保障持非常积极的态度，而群体特定安全性更强的社区成员同时支持私人保障。与可靠的团体安全提供商关系更密切的个人也更有可能更喜欢这些服务。因此，公民没有看到私人和公共保护之间的明确权衡，而特定群体的遗产调解了异质性，以支持多元化的安全保障。