More than 96% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs to one of its three autochthonous constituent peoples (Serbo-Croatian: konstitutivni narodi / конститутивни народи): Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats.

A Y chromosome haplogroup study published in 2005 found that "three main groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in spite of some quantitative differences, share a large fraction of the same ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area".

[2] In Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Ottoman rule, the population did not identify with national categories, except for a few intellectuals from urban areas who considered themselves to be Croats or Serbs.

The population of Bosnia and Herzegovina primarily identified itself by religion, using the terms Turk (for Muslims), Hrišćani (Christians) or Greeks (for the Orthodox) and "Kršćani" or Latins (for the Catholics).

[5] After World War I, Bosnia and Herzegovina was incorporated into the newly established Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed Yugoslavia).

[7] Although the new government changed the power dynamic among the ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the communitarianism inherited from Austria-Hungary remained dominant.

[9] Serb and Croat populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina saw Belgrade and Zagreb as their national centers, while at the same time, the conflict between the two groups deepened.

[10] During World War II, in 1941, Germany invaded Yugoslavia and established its puppet, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), into which Bosnia and Herzegovina was incorporated.

[18] Her argument lies on her finding that local policy change provides the context that determines the lasting effect that ethnic civil wars have on ethnonationalism.

[18] So, the Dayton agreement, she argues, is the local policy change that propelled the Bosnian War into having the disastrous post-war effects on inter-ethnic relations that it did.

The prevalence of this ethno-nationalism can be displayed, in part, by the finding that, upon return, almost all displaced persons moved into an area in which their activated ethnic identity aligned with that of the majority.

[21] The magnitude of communal exposure to violence during the Bosnian War has continued to have significant resounding effects on inter-ethnic relations and the political system, even after twenty years.

[22][23] It has been found that communities that had a higher exposure to violence continue to have lower levels of inter-ethnic trust and associate more with their ethnic political party.

[24] The evidence for this is strengthened by Hadzic et al.'s finding that those with social ties that are almost strictly contained to their own ethnic group also tend to have lower levels of inter-ethnic trust than those that do not.

[23][25] Trends in the geographic concentration of the development of more ethnically homogeneous areas during the war contributed to the location of the eventual Inter-Entity Boundary Line between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska.

"[26] Hadzic et al. argue that ethnic parties are harming Bosnia and Herzegovina's development and preventing the betterment of inter-ethnic relations, as they are incentivized to withhold universally beneficial policies in order to avoid unintentionally helping out-group members.

"[27] Politicizing ethnicity makes it a focal point of people's everyday lives, driving behavior, cognition, and their experience of emotion.