Different theories parse victim and perpetrator needs into distinct subtypes

Evidence

Twali et al. (2020) proposed a hierarchy of four acknowledgment needs: factual acknowledgment (recognition that collective victimization occurred), empathic acknowledgment (validation of the victim group’s suffering), acknowledgment of responsibility for harmdoing by the perpetrator group, and the internalization of a negative identity (when the transgression becomes an integral part of the historical perpetrator group’s identity). Building on self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci 2017), Kachanoff et al. (2020) distinguish between the needs for competence (the ability to achieve desired outcomes) and autonomy (freedom of expression of the ingroup’s sociocultural identity). Justice restoration theory (Okimoto & Wenzel 2008; for a recent review, see Okimoto & Gollwitzer 2025) highlights the basic need for justice, and Hirschberger et al. (2016) emphasize the unique characteristics of existential threat, which jeopardizes the very need for survival. — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 66

Categorization

• QUESTION: The four-level acknowledgment-need hierarchy — especially ‘internalization of a negative identity’ — is a detail worth chasing for how it refines or complicates the binary victim-agent/perpetrator-moral mapping.
• XREF: connects to: Perpetrator and victim groups favor accepting versus assigning guilt — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 152; Distinct forms of violence need separate explanatory analysis

Related

• Collective victims pursue escalating acknowledgment from perpetrators across four ordered levels. (similarity 0.88)
• Victim groups need agency (vertical) restoration while perpetrator groups need moral communion (horizontal) restoration. (similarity 0.87)
• Victim groups seek agentic power while perpetrator groups seek moral reacceptance (similarity 0.83)
• Victim and perpetrator groups pursue agentic versus moral identity restoration respectively. (similarity 0.81)
• Perpetrator and victim groups favor accepting versus assigning guilt (similarity 0.80)
• Satisfying identity needs of victims and perpetrators facilitates reconciliation across groups. (similarity 0.80)
• Victims need empowerment while perpetrators need moral acceptance for reconciliation (similarity 0.80)
• Collective narcissism drives hierarchy-reinforcing action in perpetrator groups but hierarchy-challenging action in victim groups. (similarity 0.79)
• An apology restores victim status and affirms breached values simultaneously (similarity 0.79)
• Empowering victim groups requires honoring resilience and heritage, not reducing identity to victimhood. (similarity 0.79)
• Representation shifts formed distinct identity needs for victims and perpetrators (similarity 0.78)
• Atonement must let perpetrator groups retain a positive moral identity (similarity 0.78)
• Both reconciliation and competitive victimhood flow from the same underlying identity needs. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Perpetrator and victim groups favor accepting versus assigning guilt #exemplifies (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 152
• Distinct forms of violence need separate explanatory analysis #exemplifies (0.72)