Guilt acceptance is rooted in communal not national shared victimization.

Evidence

In the next step, we control for the societal-level analysis, that is, for ethnic groups and countries (Table 5). The impact of communal-level exposure to both asymmetric (Attacks on civilians) and symmetric (Shared victimization) violence remains significant after controlling for ethnic groups (model 1). However, with the country control, only the impact of Shared victimization remains significant (model 2). The results thus suggest that the readiness to accept collective guilt is rooted in communal, not national, experiences of shared victimization. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 127

Categorization

• QUESTION: This conceptual hinge between levels of analysis mirrors questions in the reader’s survey data design.
• XREF: connects to: 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; National guilt and collective guilt are distinct concepts — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1158

Related

• Communal war exposure, not personal victimization, drives collective guilt acceptance (similarity 0.92)
• Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization. (similarity 0.89)
• Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. (similarity 0.88)
• Asymmetric violence suppresses guilt while symmetric victimization of both groups raises it. (similarity 0.88)
• Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. (similarity 0.88)
• Directly experienced violence promotes collective guilt acceptance more than mediated narratives do. (similarity 0.87)
• Group-level guilt acceptance does not track actual violence exposure directly (similarity 0.86)
• Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection. (similarity 0.86)
• War guilt acceptance depends more on regional than personal exposure. (similarity 0.86)
• Collective victimization typically suppresses acceptance of collective guilt (similarity 0.85)
• Members of victimized groups can still accept collective guilt for in-group harms. (similarity 0.84)
• Beliefs about collective victimization depend on exposure to narratives. (similarity 0.84)
• Direct war victims rarely accept collective guilt for group atrocities. (similarity 0.84)
• Asymmetric violence plus segregated contact plausibly drives rejection of collective guilt (similarity 0.83)
• Reluctance to accept guilt rises where wartime atrocities and economic hardship both occurred (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• National guilt and collective guilt are distinct concepts #expands (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1158