How does a leader’s childhood exposure to war influence their propensity to initiate conflicts? While much research explains leaders’ national security policies using their combat and rebel experiences, few scholars have examined the effects of childhood wartime violence. I develop and test two competing arguments about the effects of childhood war trauma on future conflict behavior. One argument expects that leaders exposed to war at a young age will be less likely to initiate conflict because they fear its consequences. An alternative perspective expects that these leaders are more likely to initiate conflict out of anger and a desire for revenge. I test my hypotheses using an original dataset and a research design that reduces inference barriers. Leveraging variations in the level of violence experienced during wartime, I only compare leaders who were exposed to foreign military invasions as children. I find that those who experienced severe war trauma, such as family deaths, injuries, or displacement, are less likely to initiate interstate conflicts than those who did not experience such traumatic events. These effects are substantial, particularly when political constraints are weak. My results suggest that childhood war trauma has a long-term impact on leaders’ conservatism about using force.

中文翻译：

---

恐惧还是愤怒？领导人的童年战争创伤和州际冲突的引发

领导人童年时期接触战争的经历如何影响他们发起冲突的倾向？虽然许多研究利用领导人的战斗和叛乱经历来解释他们的国家安全政策，但很少有学者研究儿童战时暴力的影响。我提出并测试了关于童年战争创伤对未来冲突行为影响的两个相互竞争的论点。一种观点认为，年轻时经历过战争的领导人不太可能发起冲突，因为他们担心冲突的后果。另一种观点认为，这些领导人更有可能出于愤怒和报复欲望而引发冲突。我使用原始数据集和减少推理障碍的研究设计来测试我的假设。利用战时经历的暴力程度的差异，我只比较童年时期遭受外国军事入侵的领导人。我发现那些经历过严重战争创伤（例如家庭死亡、受伤或流离失所）的人比那些没有经历过此类创伤事件的人更不可能引发州际冲突。这些影响是巨大的，特别是在政治约束薄弱的情况下。我的研究结果表明，童年战争创伤对领导人使用武力的保守态度有长期影响。