Collective guilt acceptance and assignment rest on different psychological conditions.

Evidence

Different subscales of this measure assess the extent to which collective guilt is accepted on behalf of the ingroup and the extent to which collective guilt is prescriptively expected or assigned to members of other social groups for their harmful actions against the ingroup. Validation studies reveal what collective guilt acceptance and assignment are, as well as what they are not. Collective guilt acceptance is seen as depending on self-categorization as a group member and the perceived illegitimacy of the ingroup’s treatment of another group. Collective guilt assignment is seen as stemming from categorizing others as members of a group that has harmed the ingroup in the past. Data from dominant and subordinate social groups in both Canada and the United States illustrate that acceptance and assignment of collective guilt reflects the historical status position of the ingroup. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 92

Categorization

• SEED: The acceptance-versus-assignment distinction maps well onto the glorification-versus-attachment asymmetry the reader is after: acceptance depends on self-categorization and perceived illegitimacy, assignment on perceived past harm by others.
• XREF: connects to: Accepting collective responsibility makes both assigning and accepting guilt feasible. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 160; Gender groups validate the distinction between assigning and accepting collective guilt. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 213

Broader Connections

• Accepting collective responsibility makes both assigning and accepting guilt feasible. #expands (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 160