Exposure to Analogous Harmdoing Increases Acknowledgment of Ingroup Transgressions in Intergroup Conflicts

Abstract

A major barrier to the resolution of intergroup conflicts is the reluctance to acknowledge transgressions committed by one’s ingroup toward the outgroup. Existing research demonstrates that individuals are generally motivated to justify ingroup conduct and avoid experiencing guilt and shame about ingroup harmdoing. The current work explores the use of an analogy-based intervention to attenuate motivated reasoning in evaluations of ingroup harmdoing. Overall, across six studies, we find support for our hypothesis that considering a case of harmdoing in a removed context increases acknowledgment of an analogous case of ingroup harmdoing. We further explore why, and under what conditions, the analogy is effective in leading to increased acknowledgment of an ingroup transgression. We find that the effect of the analogy is mediated by the endorsement of moral principles specific to the domain of the transgression, suggesting that the mechanism involves a cognitive process of analogical reasoning.

The collective praise intervention: A brief intervention highlighting prosocial behavior reduces hostility towards Muslims

“…Finally, across all studies, the CP intervention indirectly reduced levels of anti-Muslim policy support through dehumanization. Consistent with previous assessments of hypocrisy-based interventions (Bruneau et al, 2018; Bruneau, Kteily, & Urbiola, 2020; Shulman et al, 2020), the current work highlights the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing outgroup hostility. Unlike previous interventions, the CP approach utilizes positive, rather than negative or aversive, information to induce hypocrisy perception.…”

“…Although cognitive biases exacerbate conflicts, making people aware of these cognitive biases may promote better intergroup relations (see Bar-Tal & Hameiri, 2020). For example, exposing individuals to inconsistencies or hypocrisies in their judgments of actions performed by their ingroup versus an outgroup can reduce intergroup hostility (Bruneau et al, 2018; Bruneau, Kteily, & Urbiola, 2020; Shulman et al, 2020). For instance, Bruneau et al, 2018; Bruneau, Kteily, & Urbiola, 2020) examined the hypocrisy involved in collectively blaming all Muslims but not all White people for individual acts of violence committed by individual group members.…”

Political Ideology in Early Childhood: Making the Case for Studying Young Children in Political Psychology

“…People high in hawkish ideology are likely to believe outgroups are inherently motivated to harm the ingroup (Waytz et al, 2014). As a result, they tend to be supportive of unilateralism, militarism, retributive policies, and collective punishment (e.g., Reifen-Tagar, Morgan, et al, 2014;Schori-Eyal et al, 2019;Shulman et al, 2020) and less supportive of Belligerence in security and foreign affairs dialogue, negotiation, compromise, providing humanitarian aid to the outgroup, or reconciliation (Nasie et al, 2014;Noor et al, 2015;Petrović et al, 2019;Porat et al, 2016;Shulman et al, 2021). Of note, we use the term "hawkish ideology" here rather than "hawkishness," as the latter term is often used in the literature to refer both to the ideological stance itself and to the belligerent outcomes it predicts.…”

Where the Blame Lies: Unpacking Groups Into Their Constituent Subgroups Shifts Judgments of Blame in Intergroup Conflict

“…Our findings highlight the malleability of blame judgments in the context of intergroup conflict. These findings add to burgeoning research on the role that different cognitive processes (e.g., analogical reasoning; Shulman et al, 2020) play in shaping intergroup relations. Acknowledging the role that intragroup processes and divisions potentially play in maintaining or exacerbating intergroup conflict (e.g., Halevy, 2008) may aid in managing and resolving intergroup conflicts and disputes (Halevy & Cohen, 2019).…”