At group level, victims may benefit from not letting go of the past

Evidence

A key explanation for the tenuous effect of group apologies on forgiveness is skepticism regarding their genuineness (Hornsey et al. 2015). Some members of the historical perpetrator group may object to or even campaign against the apology, casting doubt among members of the historical victim group about whether the apology is genuinely supported by the perpetrator group. Additionally, intergroup relations are often characterized by low levels of trust, which further contributes to this skepticism. Recognizing this difficulty, it has been argued that “reconciliation. . .require[s] a leap of faith” (FW de Klerk Foundation 2008). Another explanation is that, unlike at the interpersonal level, where “letting go” brings profound psychological benefits to the victims (Baskin & Enright 2004), at the group level not letting go of the past may actually be beneficial to the victim group. For example, group leaders may strategically encourage holding on to past injustices to promote solidarity and a sense of shared identity within the victim group and thus establish their leadership position (see Hornsey et al. 2015). — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 104

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly reinforces the asymmetry: an explanation for why intergroup forgiveness fails that is specific to the victim group’s strategic identity interests, supporting the existing synthesis’s claim that victim and perpetrator needs differ.
• XREF: connects to: Reminders of a group’s own victimization history increase guilt assigned to others — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2145; Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 2146; Collectively experienced trauma makes victims identify as one group, motivating help — John Drury, The role of social identity processes…, 99 (+2 more)

Related

• Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.87)
• Apologies fail to increase forgiveness but still shift perceptions of perpetrator groups (similarity 0.87)
• Reminders of a group’s own victimization history increase guilt assigned to others (similarity 0.84)
• Atonement must let perpetrator groups retain a positive moral identity (similarity 0.83)
• The ingroup’s own suffering suppresses guilt even when it sees itself as responsible (similarity 0.82)
• Those who read unfavorable group history become less willing to apologize (similarity 0.82)
• Group members feel collective guilt for historical ingroup harm they did not cause. (similarity 0.82)
• Forgiving perpetrators can feel like betraying the dead to survivors (similarity 0.82)
• Reminding a victimized group of old harms raises guilt assigned to a new enemy. (similarity 0.81)
• Intergroup apologies can make relations worse without preexisting trust. (similarity 0.81)
• Ongoing historical harms trigger defensive denial where ended ones allow acknowledgment (similarity 0.81)
• Admitting group immorality is easier when it does not reflect on the group today (similarity 0.81)
• Reconciliation demands rehumanizing perpetrators, which ingroup norms punish (similarity 0.81)
• Imagining the perpetrator’s viewpoint raises guilt only in low identifiers (similarity 0.80)
• Empowering victim groups requires honoring resilience and heritage, not reducing identity to victimhood. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Collectively experienced trauma makes victims identify as one group, motivating help #complicates (0.80) — John Drury, The role of social identity processes…, 99
• Perceiving victims and perpetrators as one human group lowers guilt assignment. #corroborates (0.80) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1937
• Reminders of a group’s own victimization history increase guilt assigned to others #complicates (0.78) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2145
• Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies #complicates (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2146
• Highly identified group members resist feeling collective guilt by reinterpreting events #corroborates (0.72) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2278