Demanding too much or too little both suppress dominant-group guilt.
Evidence
The most difficult problem facing those who try to obtain the dominant group’s support for reparations is the question of how much to ask for or demand. If disadvantaged groups ask for very large-scale changes, the costs to the dominant group may exceed the importance of making reparations, and guilt as a result will be very low. On the other hand, if disadvantaged groups ask for too little, the level of collective guilt experienced may be too low to sustain meaningful social change. One strategy disadvantaged groups might take is to ask for exactly what they believe to be necessary to create a just intergroup relationship and then make the strongest case possible for the legitimacy and importance of reparations. Another strategy might be to advocate incremental changes. Although incremental changes may not establish a truly just intergroup relationship, they will at least move society closer to that goal. This strategy is not without its risks. Relatively small reparations that might be intended as a first step might prevent future reparations by making dominant groups feel as if they had already done enough. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 616
Categorization
- SEED: An essay angle on social-change strategy: the Goldilocks problem of demanding reparations—where asking for too little actively preempts future demands by letting dominant groups feel they’ve done enough.
- XREF: connects to: Motivational intensity rises and falls nonlinearly with task difficulty. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 558; Advantaged groups avoid guilt by denying inequality or dodging responsibility — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1844; High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it. — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 63 (+5 more)
Broader Connections
- Advantaged groups avoid guilt by denying inequality or dodging responsibility
#expands(0.82) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1844 - Perceiving a group’s wrongdoing as situationally justifiable blocks collective guilt
#exemplifies(0.82) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 297 - The ingroup’s own suffering suppresses guilt even when it sees itself as responsible
#exemplifies(0.80) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2145 - High identification with a group suppresses collective guilt, not only enables it.
#corroborates(0.78) — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 63