Guilt rejection is not an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization.

Evidence

The main goal of the present study was to examine the impact of collective victimization on collective guilt across the former Yugoslavia. Contrary to the assumption that rejection of collective guilt for in-group atrocities is an unavoidable reaction to collective victimization, our main assumption was that people’s beliefs about collective culpability depend on the level and the type of war experiences to which they have been exposed. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 151

Categorization

• XREF: Directly frames the reader’s hypothesis space about directly-experienced conflict exposure shaping guilt acceptance. — 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; Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 44; Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 126 (+1 more)

Related

• Communal war exposure, not personal victimization, drives collective guilt acceptance (similarity 0.91)
• Collective victimization typically suppresses acceptance of collective guilt (similarity 0.91)
• Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. (similarity 0.91)
• Asymmetric violence suppresses guilt while symmetric victimization of both groups raises it. (similarity 0.91)
• Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection. (similarity 0.90)
• Members of victimized groups can still accept collective guilt for in-group harms. (similarity 0.89)
• Guilt acceptance is rooted in communal not national shared victimization. (similarity 0.89)
• Asymmetric violence plus segregated contact plausibly drives rejection of collective guilt (similarity 0.87)
• Reminders of past victimization suppress a group’s collective guilt for its own current harmdoing. (similarity 0.87)
• Directly experienced violence promotes collective guilt acceptance more than mediated narratives do. (similarity 0.86)
• Direct war victims rarely accept collective guilt for group atrocities. (similarity 0.86)
• Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. (similarity 0.85)
• Beliefs about collective victimization depend on exposure to narratives. (similarity 0.85)
• Group-level guilt acceptance does not track actual violence exposure directly (similarity 0.84)
• Collective guilt is constructive only when experienced by the perpetrator, not the victim, group. (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Experiencing symmetric intergroup violence predicts greater acceptance of one’s group’s collective guilt. #qualifies (0.85) — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 37