The Measurement of Collective Guilt: What It Is and What It Is Not

Branscombe, Nyla R.; Slugoski, Ben R.; Kappen, Diane M.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139106931.004

Cited by 159 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the face of such ambiguity, group members are unlikely to attribute their failure to discrimination (Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002), but as indicated earlier, social pressures may promote taking personal responsibility (Garcia et al, 2005;Stangor et al, 2002). Thus, the discriminatory event may be experienced as a personal rejection, a threat to the individual's competence, esteem, and status, and one over which the individual had little control (Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappen, 2004;Smith, Webster, Parrott, & Eyre, 2002). Such appraisals are precisely those that are thought to elicit shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2002), rather than anger.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrimination often elicits anger, and yet group members typically do not take actions to confront their situation. It may be that other emotions that run contrary to action-taking also arise (e.g., shame), limiting the active expression of anger. Indeed, Study 1 (N ¼ 36) revealed that, using a failure feedback paradigm, women expressed greater shame when their failure was due to discrimination, compared to a lack of personal merit. In contrast to anger, self-reported shame was not associated with action-taking. In Study 2, women (N ¼ 91) were emotionally primed to feel either anger or shame (vs. a no mood prime control), and the moderating influence of coping styles on the link between emotions, actions, and salivary cortisol levels following discrimination were assessed. Among women primed to feel anger, problem-focused coping predicted reduced self-reported shame, lower cortisol reactivity, and greater individualistic confrontational action endorsements. In contrast, priming shame increased cortisol reactivity, but diminished the relation between particular coping styles and their capacity to facilitate action. Findings are discussed in terms of the interactive influence of emotions and coping on responses to discrimination. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The predominant emotion elicited by overt experiences of discrimination is that of anger, particularly when the situation is viewed as unjust and the ingroup as strong (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000;Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). Feelings of anger typically serve as a catalyst for action (Frijda, Kuipers, & TerSchure, 1989), including confrontational strategies on behalf of the group (Gill & Matheson, 2006;Mackie et al., 2000;van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004;Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Yet, actions to overcome the disadvantaged status of one's group are not, in fact, common (Louis & Taylor, 1999;Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). The factors that attenuate the relation between feelings of anger and group members' willingness to act on them remain to be fully elucidated.Due to pressures to take personal responsibility for negative events (Garcia, Horstman Reser, Amo, Redersdorff, & Branscombe, 2005;Stangor, Swim, VanAllen, & Sechrist, 2002), group members might not simply feel anger when they encounter discrimination, but may also experience feelings of shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2002;Tracy & Robins, 2004). Feelings of shame, in turn, might militate against the use of confrontational actions (Frijda et al., 1989). The present investigation evaluated women's emotions, particularly anger and shame, and their relation to action endorsements when women experienced gender discrimination. Further, inasmuch as discrimination may function as a stressor, individuals' coping propensities might serve to moderate the impact of anger and shame on behavioral responses to a discrimination event. As well, particular emotional responses, and especially shame, have been linked to physiological stress reactions, su...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following Weiner (1995), several commentators concur in proposing that collective guilt arises mainly when group members perceive that they have some responsibility for, or control over, their ingroup's misdeeds or the subsequent repercussions of those misdeeds (Branscombe, Slugoski, and Kappen, 2004;Leach et al, 2002;Lickel, Schmader, & Barquissau, 2004). There is also some consensus that feelings of collective guilt should generate tendencies to repair the damage done to the outgroup Lickel et al, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with the past and facing the future: mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brown

Čehajić

2007

Euro J Social Psych

200

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies are reported which examined potential mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame on reparation attitudes. Samples of young Bosnian Serbs (Ns ¼ 173, 247) were asked to report their feelings of guilt and shame for what their group had done during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia Herzegovina. They also reported their attitudes towards making reparation to Bosnian Muslims. Both collective guilt and shame positively predicted reparation attitudes, but these associations were differently mediated. The effects of guilt were mediated by empathy for the outgroup, while the effects of shame were mediated by self-pity and empathy. The theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…Verilen zararı kendilerinin yapmadıklarını ve bu zarardan sorumlu olmadıklarını (Branscombe, 2004;Miron ve ark., 2010), dış grubun suçlu olduğunu (Tarrant ve ark., 2012), zararın abartıldığını, kendilerinin de mağdur ve acı içinde olduklarını belirterek grup saygınlıklarını korumaya çalışabilirler (Shnabel, Halabi ve Noor, 2013). Verilen zararı tüm iç gruba genellemenin yanlış olduğunu belirtip sorumluluğu kendi içlerindeki belirli bir alt gruba yükleme ve toptan iç grup sorumluluğundan kaçınma davranışı gösterebilirler (Branscombe, Slugoski ve Kappen, 2004). Ayrıca, tarihsel süreçte yaşanan ortamın özelliklerini olanların nedeni olarak algılayabilir ve kendi iç gruplarının başka güçler tarafından zorlandığı için olumsuz davrandığını ileri sürebilirler (Wohl ve ark., 2006).…”

Section: Kolektif Suçluluk Duymanın Tanımı Ve Kolektif Suçluluğa Alteunclassified

Collective Guilt: Antecedets, Outcomes, and Ways of Avoding

Sakallı-Uğurlu¹,

Soylu²

2016

Nesne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to present the studies that illustrate collective guilt-a common phenomenon observed in the context of intergroup relations as a consequence of harming another group and stems from sharing group membership with the harm-doers. First of all, collective guilt is defined. In this description some psychological processes used as alternatives for collective guilt are mentioned and differences of collective guilt from personel guilt and collective shame are presented. Then, whether collective guilt can be experienced on the world stage is discussed and four social psychological factors that are asserted by researchers to generate collective guilt are elaborated. These factors are self categorization as a member of a group that has harmed another group, accepting one's group to be responsible for the harm done to another group, perceiving the damaging behaviours done by ingroup as illegitimate and the cost of making reperations in terms of ingroup. Findings related to collective guilt experienced depending on mentioned four main factors and consequences of feeling collective guilt are shared. Finally, a general conclusion and future directions are presented.

show abstract

The Measurement of Collective Guilt: What It Is and What It Is Not

Cited by 159 publications

References 34 publications

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Dealing with the past and facing the future: mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Collective Guilt: Antecedets, Outcomes, and Ways of Avoding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About