Perpetual ingroup victimhood as a distorted lens: Effects on attribution and categorization

Abstract

Although the effects of group‐based victimhood on attitudes and emotions have been demonstrated in previous research, the ways it affects cognitive processes remain unclear. Four studies examined how a perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation (PIVO) affects cognitive biases. High levels of PIVO were associated with the categorization of more outgroups as hostile to the ingroup, and more rapid responses when using an enmity criterion (Study 1). PIVO was also associated with more attributions of malevolent intentions and fewer attributions of neutral intentions to outgroup members in ambiguous situations (Study 2a); when primed with reminders of historical group trauma, attribution of malevolent intentions increased among high‐ but not low‐ PIVO individuals (Study 2b). However, the effect extended to all participants when using a larger sample (Study 2c). The implications of these categorization and attributional biases are discussed in particular as regards the self‐perpetuating nature of perceived group victimhood.

The case for and causes of intraminority solidarity in support for reparations: Evidence from community and student samples in Canada

“…Past research suggests reminders of collective victimhood may negatively affect intergroup relations with an adversarial group (cf. Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012;Noor, Vollhardt, Mari, & Nadler, 2017;Schori-Eyal, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2014;Schori-Eyal, Klar, & Ben-Ami, 2017;Schori-Eyal, Klar, Roccas, & McNeill, 2017;Wohl & Branscombe, 2008) and promote victimization comparisons among such groups (e.g., De Guissmé & Licata, 2017). Yet, we propose such reminders may not always lead to such negative consequences.…”

The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four diaspora groups

“…This subtheme connects adverse experiences in the past and present, indicating perpetual victimhood (i.e., the sense that the ingroup's victimhood has endured over time; Schori‐Eyal et al, ). This is also reflected in discussions of the consequences of victimization for survivors in the present (subtheme d).…”

“…Social psychological research on collective victimhood often examines how it shapes attitudes toward reconciliation with a former perpetrator group or adversary. Processes that affect these relations include cognitions regarding collective victimhood (Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992;Schori-Eyal et al, 2017;Wohl & Branscombe, 2008), such as competitive (Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012) or inclusive comparisons between the ingroup's and other groups' suffering (Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013;Vollhardt, 2013Vollhardt, , 2015. Victim groups' needs for empowerment (Shnabel & Nadler, 2015) and for acknowledgment (Hameiri & Nadler, 2017;Vollhardt, Mazur, & Lemahieu, 2014) from other groups also have been examined, as well as affective responses to collective victimhood, including (less) collective guilt for ingroup harmdoing (Schori-Eyal, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2014;Wohl & Branscombe, 2008).…”

“…Social psychological research on collective victimhood has recently begun to gain traction. Most of this research focuses on (negative) consequences for intergroup relations, such as less intergroup trust, less willingness to forgive the perpetrator group, or justification of violence in other contexts (e.g., Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008;Schori-Eyal, Klar, & Ben-Ami, 2017;Wohl & Branscombe, 2008). Less attention has been paid to how people make sense of and cope with these experiences (see Frankl, 1984;Janoff-Bulman, 1992), and how collective victimhood shapes intragroup processes and individual lives.…”

The Shadows of the Past

“…Moreover, PIVO plays a central role in the construction of group identity and the consecration of the trauma through ceremonies and memorial days (e.g., the Shiite Ashura or the Jewish Passover ceremony; see Schori-Eyal, Klar, & Raz, 2016) which all reflect a strong emphasis on tradition and make it a compelling avenue for pursuing this value. Whereas the focus of FOV on the potential reversal of roles, which implies transitivity and fluidity in a central domain of group identity (i.e., morality) suggests that it would be highly incongruous with the tradition value.…”