An advantaged Hindu majority reports stronger collective victimhood than the Muslim minority

Evidence

The results showed that Hindus reported collective victimhood in greater amount compared to Muslims. Muslims felt more FRD than Hindus. Hindus also carried more negative emotions as a consequence of experiencing collective victimhood. The preferred reaction of Hindus in conflict situations was of revenge and less of reconciliation. Collective victimhood of Hindus was explained by ingroup identity and negative emotions associated with the experiences of collective victimhood and fraternalistic relative deprivation. The action of revenge of Hindus and Muslims was explained by different sets of factors. Identity and CV-related negative emotions were more important in explaining the revengeful reactions of Hindus, while in the case of Muslims relative power, FRD and FRD-related negative emotions were found more efficacious. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 2

Categorization

• XREF: Directly extends the reader’s existing work on weak-identity/accountability-evasion victimhood patterns beyond US whiteness to a cross-national, historically dominant caste group. — connects to: Majority Christians endorse religious-freedom victimhood claims more than claims that Christians themselves are victims. — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 59; Collective victimhood drives Hindu revenge more than raw negative emotions do — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 114; Hindu victimhood arises from ingroup identity, not from relative disadvantage. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 53 (+4 more)
• QUESTION: How was ‘collective victimhood’ of the majority operationalized and measured, since official affirmative action favors lower castes and Muslims?

Broader Connections

• A majority, advantaged group reports feeling more victimised than the minority it once victimised. #exemplifies (0.95) — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 52
• Dominant majority and the group it harmed show asymmetric victimhood dynamics. #exemplifies (0.90) — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 127
• Collective victimhood drives Hindu revenge more than raw negative emotions do #expands (0.85) — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 114
• Hindu victimhood arises from ingroup identity, not from relative disadvantage. #expands (0.85) — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 53
• Dominant-group members endorse digressive victimhood claims more than competitive ones #exemplifies (0.85) — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 90
• Victimisation among advantaged groups likely works differently than among minorities #qualifies (0.80) — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 10