The reparation-difficulty effect is specific to guilt, not other emotions.

Evidence

Participants also completed single item measures of anger, fear, and sadness. For each of these emotions, we examined the omnibus F test and the cubic contrast. In no case were results signifi cant, indicating that the effects we observed were specifi c to guilt. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 86

Categorization

• QUESTION: Relevant to whether low-guilt participants substitute another emotion (indifference vs. contempt/shame) — flagged in the future-research section.
• XREF: connects to: Reparation difficulty has an inverted-U effect on collective guilt — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 70; Reparation difficulty was experimentally manipulated without eliciting actual commitment. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 51

Related

• Reparation difficulty was experimentally manipulated without eliciting actual commitment. (similarity 0.85)
• Collective guilt peaks at moderate rather than low or high reparation difficulty (similarity 0.83)
• Reparation difficulty has an inverted-U effect on collective guilt (similarity 0.83)
• Guilt works as motivation whose intensity tracks the cost of required action. (similarity 0.82)
• Self-reported guilt is underestimated because guilt implicates one’s own ingroup. (similarity 0.82)
• Men feel most collective guilt when reparations are moderately difficult. (similarity 0.82)
• Contradictory ideologies that assert change is either trivial or impossible both suppress collective guilt (similarity 0.81)
• Low-guilt states mask opposite potentials for future guilt escalation under new deterrents. (similarity 0.80)