Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection.

Evidence

The significant impact of Shared victimization is found even after controlling for Economic exclusion and Ethnic homogeneity before and after the war (model 8). In contrast, the impact of Attacks on civilians ceases to be significant. Additional analyses show that Attacks on civilians become nonsignificant after controlling for regional Economic exclusion, suggesting that reluctance to accept collective guilt in these areas is driven by accumulated negative events of both war atrocities and economic difficulties. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 126

Categorization

• QUESTION: Mechanism unclear: is accumulated adversity, not asymmetric victimhood per se, the active ingredient suppressing guilt acceptance?
• XREF: connects to: Asymmetric violence suppresses guilt while symmetric victimization of both groups raises it. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 111; Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 151; Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 37

Related

• Asymmetric violence suppresses guilt while symmetric victimization of both groups raises it. (similarity 0.91)
• Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization. (similarity 0.90)
• Reluctance to accept guilt rises where wartime atrocities and economic hardship both occurred (similarity 0.89)
• Communal war exposure, not personal victimization, drives collective guilt acceptance (similarity 0.86)
• Guilt acceptance is rooted in communal not national shared victimization. (similarity 0.86)
• Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. (similarity 0.85)
• Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. (similarity 0.85)
• Collective victimization typically suppresses acceptance of collective guilt (similarity 0.84)
• Directly experienced violence promotes collective guilt acceptance more than mediated narratives do. (similarity 0.82)
• Direct war victims rarely accept collective guilt for group atrocities. (similarity 0.81)
• War guilt acceptance depends more on regional than personal exposure. (similarity 0.81)
• Asymmetric violence plus segregated contact plausibly drives rejection of collective guilt (similarity 0.81)
• Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.80)
• Beliefs about collective victimization depend on exposure to narratives. (similarity 0.80)
• Members of victimized groups can still accept collective guilt for in-group harms. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization. #expands (0.78) — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 151
• Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. #contradicts (0.72) — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 37