Obstacles to reconciliation and forgiveness among victim groups of unacknowledged past trauma and genocide

Abstract

Groups in conflict often resist efforts toward reconciliation with the outgroups. Despite the growing research examining processes underlying support for reconciliation, we know little about how resentment might drive members of victim groups that have experienced violence and atrocities to oppose reconciliation and reduce their willingness to forgive the perpetrator group. Using the context of the Turkish–Armenian conflict, the present research investigated the association of ingroup identification, ingroup glorification, and resentment with willingness to reconcile and forgive among Armenians in their homeland context (Armenia; Study 1) and Armenian‐Americans in the hostland context (the United States; Study 2). In Study 1, stronger Armenian identification and Armenian glorification predicted more resentment toward the Turks, which in turn predicted less forgiveness and less support for reconciliation. Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 regarding the associations of ingroup glorification but not ingroup identification. However, Study 2 also demonstrated that identification with diaspora identity (i.e., American identity) predicted positive intergroup outcomes. Results point to the important relationship between different modes of identification both in the homeland and in hostland countries and intergroup‐related outcomes through resentment, and to the obstacles to reconciliation and forgiveness among victim groups of unacknowledged past trauma and genocide.

The role of ethnic identification, allyship, and conflict narratives in supporting pro-minority policies among majority and minority groups.

“…For ethnic minority groups whose rights are continuously denied or not acknowledged by majority group members in conflict contexts, these negative views or attitudes toward outgroups may be justifiable because these views may protect minority group members from superficial reconciliation (for a discussion on victim groups, see Nadler, 2012). Therefore, ingroup identification for minority group members may be seen as a double-edged sword: leading to more positive outcomes for the ingroup, whereas having the potential to lead to more negative consequences for intergroup relations (see, e.g., Uluğ et al, in press).…”

National glorification and attachment differentially predict support for intergroup conflict resolution: Scrutinizing cross‐country generalizability

“…The current research also enhances the understanding of the role of attachment in conflict. Prior research has either only measured glorification but not attachment (Bilali, 2013; Uluğ et al., 2021), or produced rather mixed findings regarding the conflict implications of attachment (e.g., Leidner, 2015; Leidner et al., 2010; Li et al., 2016; Rovenpor et al., 2016). One potential conclusion drawn from the mixed findings is that whereas glorification is a robust and consistent predictor of negative intergroup outcomes, the role of attachment in intergroup relations is more variable, depending on the intergroup context and outcome of interest.…”

“…In addition to the link between glorification and retributive justice, Selvanathan and Leidner (2020) showed that attachment promoted restorative justice, which in turn predicted support for normative collective action. Other studies, however, have not consistently found a link between attachment and various intergroup outcomes (Leidner, 2015; Leidner & Castano, 2012; Li et al., 2016, 2018; Rovenpor et al., 2016), or only measured glorification but not attachment (Bilali, 2013; Uluğ et al., 2021).…”

“…Originally, however, the scale was developed in Israel with Jewish Israeli participants (Roccas et al., 2006; Sagiv et al., 2012). Its use in other countries has been more infrequent, for example in the United Kingdom (Leidner et al., 2010) and Serbia (Li et al., 2018), and among other populations such as Turks studying in the United States (Bilali, 2013), Arab Israelis (Selvanathan & Leidner, 2020) and Armenians (Uluğ et al., 2021). Theoretically, the psychological consequences of glorification and attachment—for example, attitudes towards different CRS—are thought to generalize across national and cultural contexts.…”

Examining beliefs about reconciliation and social integration in Kosovo: Testing effects of interethnic contact and differences in perspective among ethnic Albanians and Serbs

“…Reconciliation has typically been measured in terms of people's willingness to reconcile (e.g., Biro et al., 2004) or to engage in actions that promote reconciliation (e.g., Pham et al., 2004; Tropp et al., 2017), yet people's willingness to reconcile is likely to be shaped profoundly by their beliefs about reconciliation and what the reconciliation process might take given the many emotional and relational obstacles involved (Čehajić‐Clancy & Bilewicz, 2017). Only rarely have researchers assessed people's actual beliefs about reconciliation, such as whether it is deemed to be necessary (see Halloran, 2007; Uluğ et al., 2021), or whether it is perceived to be possible (Cehajic‐Clancy & Bilewicz, 2017). Relatedly, the topic of reconciliation involves questions about whether people see greater integration of conflicting groups as a desired and valued goal worthy of being pursued (Cohen‐Chen et al., 2017; Halperin & Schwartz, 2010; Leach & Williams, 1999) and the extent to which they are personally willing to engage in social relations with groups on the other side of the conflict (Čehajić‐Clancy et al., 2023).…”