Bearing witness: Introducing the Perceived Mass Atrocities Dataset (PMAD)

Collin J Meisel, Jonathan D Moyer, Austin S Matthews, Oliver Kaplan, Ruth Byrnes, Kerent Benjumea, Phoebe Cribb and Collin Van Son
Additional contact information
Collin J Meisel: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA
Jonathan D Moyer: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA
Austin S Matthews: Department of Political Science, East Carolina University, USA
Oliver Kaplan: Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, USA
Ruth Byrnes: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA
Kerent Benjumea: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA
Phoebe Cribb: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA
Collin Van Son: Frederick S Pardee Institute for International Futures at the University of Denver, USA

Journal of Peace Research, 2025, vol. 62, issue 3, 799-811

Abstract: The risk factors and consequences of atrocities are deeply interconnected with questions of intra- and interstate stability and conflict, economic development, colonialism, and gender equality, as well as atrocity crime monitoring and prevention. However, there is no globally comparable measure of lethal and less-lethal atrocities. The Perceived Mass Atrocities Dataset (PMAD) is a country-year measure of atrocities with accompanying narratives. Built to support the US Congress’s Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, PMAD enables the systematic comparison of the occurrence and magnitude of seven atrocity types, in addition to group-perpetrated violence against women and LGBTQIA+ groups, with aggregate atrocities indices for 196 countries from 2018 to 2022. PMAD offers a foundation for quantitative studies of atrocities as well as more qualitative, process-focused research of lethal and less-lethal violence with its single, divisible framework. The PMAD data highlight several regions where analysis of atrocities using data on only lethal atrocities would be inadequate, especially Central and Eastern Asia. The data can also facilitate research into the relationships between mass atrocities and gender discrimination, neopatrimonialism, and political polarization.

Keywords: atrocities; human rights; quantitative international politics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433241249333 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:62:y:2025:i:3:p:799-811

DOI: 10.1177/00223433241249333

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().