Reluctance to accept guilt rises where wartime atrocities and economic hardship both occurred

Evidence

In contrast, the impact of Attacks on civilians ceases to be significant. Additional analyses show that Attacks on civilians become nonsignificant after controlling for regional Economic exclusion, suggesting that reluctance to accept collective guilt in these areas is driven by accumulated negative events of both war atrocities and economic difficulties. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 126

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Direct war victims rarely accept collective guilt for group atrocities. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 20; Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 109; 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)

Broader Connections

• Economic deprivation, not asymmetric violence alone, drives guilt rejection. #corroborates (0.85) — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 126
• Heavier regional war victimization raises acceptance of collective guilt. #contradicts (0.78) — Sandra Penic, Guy Elcheroth, and Dario Spini, When Is Collective Exposure to War…, 109
• The ingroup’s own suffering suppresses guilt even when it sees itself as responsible #expands (0.76) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 2145