Dominant groups adopt victimhood claims even when they reject the principle the claim invokes.
Evidence
A reasonable assumption might be that support for religious freedom would be a strong predictor of preference for the digressive victimiza tion argument, which rests on the claim that Christians’ religious freedom was threatened. However, we observed no significant associa tion between support for religious freedom and the forced-choice pref erence for the digressive victimhood claim (r(462) = −0.02, p = .701; Fig. 2). As can be seen in the upper left quadrant of Fig. 2, there are numerous participants (N = 55) who scored at or below the midpoint on support for religious freedom (suggesting indifference or opposition this principle), despite favoring the digressive victimhood argument. Because support for the digressive victimhood claim was high on average, this suggests that even those relatively low in support for the digressive principle (support for religious freedom) were still willing to express a preference for a digressive victimhood claim resting upon that very principle. — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 69
Categorization
- DEEPTHINKING: This is a genuinely paradigm-shifting finding for the reader’s vicarious-victimhood hypothesis: the dominant group recruits a moral language (religious freedom) as a tactical weapon while being indifferent or opposed to the principle itself — the language is purely instrumental, decoupled from genuine commitment.
- XREF: Directly evidences the reader’s core question about dominant groups borrowing subordinate-groups’ victimhood/moral language instrumentally when challenged — connects to their working theoretical model. — connects to: Insincerity marks some dominant-group victimhood claims meant to forestall criticism. — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 18; 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; Dominant-group members endorse digressive victimhood claims more than competitive ones — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 90 (+4 more)
- SEED: Angle for an article: ‘adversarial appropriation’ as a weaponized moral language — when a group wields a principle it doesn’t actually believe in purely to countersignal against accusers.
Broader Connections
- People endorse digressive victimhood claims without believing the principle they invoke
#expands(0.92) — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 69 - Dominant-group members endorse digressive victimhood claims more than competitive ones
#expands(0.86) — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 90 - Dominant groups prefer shifting victimhood to a new harm dimension over claiming reverse discrimination.
#exemplifies(0.80) — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 6 - Objectively powerful groups claim victim status by merging current and past enemies
#exemplifies(0.79) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2146 - Objectively privileged groups can feel victimized, justifying resistance to redress.
#corroborates(0.78) — Nurit Shnabel and Johannes Ullrich, Identity Needs in Intergroup Relations, 125