Three layers of collective victimhood: effects of multileveled victimhood on intergroup conflicts in the Israeli–Arab context

Abstract

Perceived collective victimhood plays a significant role in conflictual intergroup relations. We suggest a conceptualization of three different layers of collective victimhood: historical victimhood, general conflict victimhood, and conflict event victimhood. Three studies explore the interrelationship between the layers and their effects in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In Study 1, general conflict victimhood mediates the relationship between historical victimhood and willingness for compromise. In Study 2, conducted in two waves, changes in general conflict victimhood predict support for military actions against the out‐group. The relationship between general conflict victimhood and support for military actions was mediated by conflict event victimhood. In Study 3, three new scales were developed, and their relations with different outcomes examined. Findings were nearly identical to the models tested in Studies 1–2.

How Is Existential Threat Related to Intergroup Conflict? Introducing the Multidimensional Existential Threat (MET) Model

“…The study of existential political cognitions has been primarily conducted along three distinct paths: Terror management theory (TMT: Greenberg et al, 1997), collective future-oriented existential concerns (e.g., Wohl et al, 2010), and collective victimization, an existential concern that is primarily past-oriented (e.g., Noor et al, 2012; Vollhardt, 2012, 2015; Schori-Eyal et al, 2014). TMT (Greenberg et al, 1997) is arguably the most theoretically elaborate attempt to date to understand how existential concerns shape social cognitions and behaviors.…”

“…This perception of harm may have implications on several levels of analysis: The macro level (society); the meso level (group and intergroup); and the micro-level – the individual (Vollhardt, 2012). Further, collective victimization may refer to historical victimization that leaves a traumatic memory, and may also refer to victimization in a contemporary conflict that is ongoing and does not necessarily stem from a history of victimization (Schori-Eyal et al, 2014). In the current research we limit our discussion of collective victimization to the collective implications of historical victimization.…”

“…In the current research we limit our discussion of collective victimization to the collective implications of historical victimization. Historical victimization is considered a fundamental level of collective victimhood (Schori-Eyal et al, 2014) in contexts in which there is a history of collective trauma. Historical victimization is relevant to understanding intergroup conflict because often the pains and woes of past events are conflated with contemporary conflict (Lifton, 2005); instill a sense of siege among victims (Bar-Tal and Antebi, 1992; Hirschberger et al, in press); and foster a belief in perpetual ingroup victimization (Schori et al, 2009), which may ironically increase as time from the historical trauma passes (Klar et al, 2013).…”

The Shadows of the Past

“…(Allport, 1954, p. 155) In a similar vein, the same group trauma can inspire different worldviews in members of the victimized group. Group trauma is often assumed to produce a group victimhood mindset conceptualized as competitive victimhood (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008;Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012), multilevel collective victimhood (Schori-Eyal, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2014), or exclusive victim consciousness (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013;Vollhardt, 2009Vollhardt, , 2012Vollhardt & Bilali, 2014). This important mindset has received increased scholarly attention in recent years, and has been associated with an increased sense of vulnerability and mistrust (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003), fear of physical or symbolic annihilation (Montville, 1990;, hypervigilance (Ross, 2001), and a perception of the world as an actively hostile place (Bar-Tal, 1998Janoff-Bulman, 1992;Staub & Pearlman, 2001).…”

“…This important mindset has received increased scholarly attention in recent years, and has been associated with an increased sense of vulnerability and mistrust (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003), fear of physical or symbolic annihilation (Montville, 1990;, hypervigilance (Ross, 2001), and a perception of the world as an actively hostile place (Bar-Tal, 1998Janoff-Bulman, 1992;Staub & Pearlman, 2001). In the context of intergroup conflicts, a sense of group victimhood has been related to reduced group-based guilt (Wohl & Branscombe, 2008), shame, rage, and entrenched intergroup violence (Rice & Benson, 2005), greater outgroup mistrust and reduced willingness for intergroup forgiveness (Noor et al, 2008), reduced willingness for compromise and greater support for military actions against the outgroup (Schori-Eyal et al, 2014).…”