Insecurity, Psychological Capital and Ambiguity : Experiments in Eastern DRCongo

Abstract

Abstract This paper examines the relationship between political insecurity, Psychological Capital (PsyCap), and ambiguity aversion in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Through one controlled lab experiment and two lab-in-field experiments (N = 643 total participants), the study tests whether exposure to insecurity primes increases aversion to ambiguous choices and whether PsyCap—comprising hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism—mediates this effect. Participants were randomly assigned to insecurity-primed or control groups, with the former answering questions about local violence and criminal threats. Ambiguity aversion was measured via an Ellsberg urn task, while PsyCap was assessed using the validated CPC-12 scale. Results consistently demonstrated that priming insecurity significantly increased ambiguity aversion across all studies (e.g., odds ratios of 0.28–0.125), confirming Hypothesis 1. Insecurity also robustly diminished PsyCap (supporting Hypothesis 2). While higher PsyCap directly correlated with reduced ambiguity aversion, mediation analyses decisively rejected Hypothesis 3: PsyCap did not mediate the insecurity–ambiguity link (ACME = 0.000, p = 1.000 in all studies). This indicates that insecurity’s effect on economic decision-making operates through a direct affective pathway, independent of PsyCap’s cognitive resources. The study challenges theoretical assumptions by revealing that although insecurity depletes psychological resources and low PsyCap aligns with greater ambiguity aversion, the acute impact of insecurity on choices bypasses PsyCap mediation. This underscores the potency of direct threat responses in fragile contexts. Findings highlight the need for policies addressing immediate affective drivers of risk avoidance to complement psychological resilience interventions in conflict-affected populations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.