Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt.

Evidence

We expect that in communities with a high prevalence of symmetric violence, collective guilt acceptance is stronger than elsewhere. We further hypothesize that in places that are characterized by asymmetric violence, or in places that were not affected by wars, where most people’s main sources of information about the conflicts were politicized societal narratives, the likelihood of experiencing or learning about events that contradict the dominant narrative is much lower. Accordingly, in these places, people might be more reluctant to recognize and acknowledge that crimes were committed in the name of their group. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 37

As predicted by the collective vulnerability approach (see Spini, Elcheroth, and Fasel 2008), in regions with high prevalence of symmetric violence, that is, where violence affected members of both groups involved in the conflict, the acceptance of collective guilt is strongest. This finding thus gives credence to the assumption that people who had a heightened likelihood of learning about out-group suffering or ingroup atrocities in a concrete way, for example, by directly witnessing or indirectly learning about such events through contact with out-group members, might be more ready to condemn in-group wrongdoings. Indeed, ethnographic studies conducted in places affected by symmetric violence in Bosnia showed not only that people were aware of out-group members’ suffering but also that they sometimes supported, helped, or even saved each other (Broz 2005; Macˇek 2009). Biro et al. (2004) showed that across three ethnically mixed, war-torn municipalities in Croatia and Bosnia, people maintained their prewar friendships with members of opposing national groups, and these people showed the greatest readiness for reconciliation. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 153

As predicted by the collective vulnerability approach (see Spini, Elcheroth, and Fasel 2008), in regions with high prevalence of symmetric violence, that is, where violence affected members of both groups involved in the conflict, the acceptance of collective guilt is strongest. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 153

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s purpose on how directly-experienced conflict exposure shapes guilt acceptance — this directly operationalizes that mechanism. — connects to: Event frequency in ACLED closely approximates victimization intensity despite equal event weighting. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 85; Guilt acceptance is rooted in communal not national shared victimization. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 127; Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 16 (+3 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 37; Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 153
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Related

• Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization. (similarity 0.91)
• Directly experienced violence promotes collective guilt acceptance more than mediated narratives do. (similarity 0.91)
• Asymmetric violence suppresses guilt while symmetric victimization of both groups raises it. (similarity 0.91)
• Communal war exposure, not personal victimization, drives collective guilt acceptance (similarity 0.91)
• Guilt acceptance is rooted in communal not national shared victimization. (similarity 0.88)
• Members of victimized groups can still accept collective guilt for in-group harms. (similarity 0.88)
• Collective victimization typically suppresses acceptance of collective guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini — When Is Collective Exposure to War Events Related to More Acceptance of Collective Guilt? (similarity 0.85)
• Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection. (similarity 0.85)
• Asymmetric violence plus segregated contact plausibly drives rejection of collective guilt (similarity 0.85)
• Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. (similarity 0.84)
• Direct war victims rarely accept collective guilt for group atrocities. (similarity 0.83)
• Group-level guilt acceptance does not track actual violence exposure directly (similarity 0.83)
• Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.82)
• Beliefs about collective victimization depend on exposure to narratives. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt #expands (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 16