Guilt differences between high and low identifiers emerge only on ambiguous history

Evidence

Not surprisingly, purely negative information resulted in the highest feelings of collective guilt and purely positive information in the least collective guilt. In these conditions, there were no differences between low and high identifiers, and this was probably due to the unambiguous nature of the information (Ellemers et al., 1999). More interestingly, in the ambiguous information condition low identifiers experienced higher levels of collective guilt than did high identifiers. The ambiguous condition also resulted in differences in behavioral intentions, with low identifiers being more in favor of reparations than were high identifiers. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 695

While much of the literature on group serving attributions examines attributions for group outcomes, other research has examined biased perception of the actions committed by ingroup members against outgroups. Of greatest relevance is the work of Doosje et al. (1998) who investigated Dutch students’ reactions to their country’s past behavior when colonizing Indonesia. Interestingly, when participants were presented with a mixture of positive and negative outcomes resulting from the colonization, Dutch students who were less nationally identified reported more guilt than those students who were more nationally identified. Group identifi- cation did not moderate feelings of collective guilt when the information presented was unambiguously positive or negative. Thus, under conditions of ambiguity, those who are highly identified with a group may be motivated to ignore, deny, or downplay the negative actions of their ingroup in favor of more positive behaviors, whereas those who are less identified may be more likely to recognize and accept these same negative behaviors and feel guiltier for them. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 305

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the general research-literature theme of ambiguity — how gaps in evidence let motivated reasoning fill in what’s implied, also seen in the Doosje 1998 ambiguity condition reading. — connects to: Adopting the perpetrator’s perspective reverses which identifiers feel most guilty — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1065; Imagining the perpetrator’s viewpoint raises guilt only in low identifiers — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1061; Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 23 (+6 more)
• QUESTION: This is the ambiguity-boundary finding the reader should weigh against Roccas’ claim that threat, not devotion, drives the guilt asymmetry - does ambiguity itself function as a threat-like moderator?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 695; Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 305

Broader Connections

• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt #expands (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 23
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt #expands (0.78) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 16
• Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens #contradicts (0.75) — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 71
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. #expands (0.75) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 25
• Mild group identifiers feel guilty when harm is distant and done by others #qualifies (0.74) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1069
• Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt #qualifies (0.72) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1170