Escalating conflict reduces in-group acknowledgment of past wrongdoings

Evidence

In these two studies we sought to achieve a better understanding of group-based guilt in the context of an ongoing violent conflict. Study 1 was conducted during two phases of the Israeli– Palestinian conflict: a period of relative calm and a period of violent escalation. For both these times we examined reactions to information indicating that the in-group had harmed members of another group, enabling us to explore the effects of intensification of the conflict. In both periods participants expressed moral condemnation of the in-group’s past wrongdoings. The intensity of the conflict, however, had a clear effect: Endorsement of cognitions exonerating the in-group was higher and group-based guilt was lower in the sample examined during the escalation of the conflict. … The current results extend these findings by showing that escalation of a conflict also moves group members away from acknowledging their group’s wrongdoings in the past. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 130

Categorization

• QUESTION: Relevant to whether perceived threat versus actual harm to the out-group drives glorification — but this contrasts an external conflict with past in-group wrongdoings; does persecution of the in-group itself follow the same trajectory?
• ADDENDUM: Could follow up the sacrifice essay frame: acknowledgment of one’s own group’s moral violations is the first casualty of heightened threat.
• XREF: connects to: Escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not alter how identification modes predict group guilt — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 80; Conflict escalation alters even retrospective moral judgments of past in-group harms. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 86; Conflict escalation lowers group-based guilt and raises exonerating cognitions over time. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 87 (+7 more)

Related

• Conflict escalation lowers group-based guilt and raises exonerating cognitions over time. (similarity 0.93)
• Conflict escalation alters even retrospective moral judgments of past in-group harms. (similarity 0.93)
• Escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not alter how identification modes predict group guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Ongoing historical harms trigger defensive denial where ended ones allow acknowledgment (similarity 0.87)
• Groups respond in real time to current rather than historical in-group wrongdoings (similarity 0.87)
• Those who read unfavorable group history become less willing to apologize (similarity 0.86)
• Reminders of a group’s own victimization history increase guilt assigned to others (similarity 0.84)
• Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.83)
• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups (similarity 0.83)
• Conflict both demands belief in in-group morality and creates urgent need to question it (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived in-group moral violations trigger defensive cognitive distortions. (similarity 0.83)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.82)
• In-group glorification but not attachment predicts justifying harm against out-groups (similarity 0.81)
• The ingroup’s own suffering suppresses guilt even when it sees itself as responsible (similarity 0.80)
• Admitting group immorality is easier when it does not reflect on the group today (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Repressed, unrecognized prejudice resurfaces in behavior and later conflict #corroborates (0.80)
• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups #expands (0.80) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 358
• Moral critiques of in-group misdeeds reduce defensive reactions better than pragmatic arguments #qualifies (0.75)