Negative emotions bind narratives of victimhood and consolidate ingroup identity.

Evidence

Negative emotions, no matter what their source, play an important role in two ways. First, they bind together the narratives of collective victimhood. The two emotions are a form of emotional memories (Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Lewis, 2008). In doing so, they act to consolidate ingroup identity by engaging in emotional elaboration that the group members provide to the narratives of collective traumas experienced by their group (Fülöp et al., 2013). This may explain why collective victimhood of Hindus gets predicted by ingroup identity and by the two negative emotions which ensue from collective victimhood and FRD. In the case of Muslims, this relationship is found weak. Ingroup identity and FRD-negative emotions do not predict their collective victimhood feelings. This result will need further investigation. Could this be because the Muslims feel embarrassed or guilty about the hurt their predecessors, that is, Moghuls may have caused to the Hindus in the past? — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised, 127

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why would advantaged-group identity predict collective victimhood better than minority-group identity here — a reverse of the usual expectation worth chasing.
• XREF: connects to: A majority, advantaged group reports feeling more victimised than the minority it once victimised. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 52; Narrated victimhood, not raw emotion, drives revenge among the advantaged group.; Collective victimhood predicts revenge reactions independent of its associated emotions. — R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi, When the Advantaged Feel Victimised:…, 54 (+1 more)

Related

• Collective victimhood predicts revenge reactions independent of its associated emotions. (similarity 0.92)
• A majority, advantaged group reports feeling more victimised than the minority it once victimised. (similarity 0.89)
• Collective victimhood drives Hindu revenge more than raw negative emotions do (similarity 0.89)
• Macro-historical narratives can produce collective victimhood absent any present-day relative deprivation. (similarity 0.89)
• Dominant majority and the group it harmed show asymmetric victimhood dynamics. (similarity 0.88)
• Collective victimhood drives revenge more than reconciliation in both groups (similarity 0.88)
• An advantaged Hindu majority reports stronger collective victimhood than the Muslim minority (similarity 0.88)
• Collective victimhood feelings suppress reconciliatory actions across both groups (similarity 0.87)
• Hindu victimhood arises from ingroup identity, not from relative disadvantage. (similarity 0.86)
• Narrated victimhood, not raw emotion, drives revenge among the advantaged group. (similarity 0.83)
• Majority and minority revenge reactions are driven by different psychological factors (similarity 0.83)
• High ingroup identifiers recall disproportionately more victimization than perpetration by their group. (similarity 0.82)
• R. C. Tripathi, R. Kumar, and V. N. Tripathi — When the Advantaged Feel Victimised The Case of Hindus in India (similarity 0.82)
• Hindu victimhood claims run on historical memories, not discrete events. (similarity 0.81)
• Victimisation among advantaged groups likely works differently than among minorities (similarity 0.80)