From Threat to Challenge: Understanding the Impact of Historical Collective Trauma on Contemporary Intergroup Conflict

Collective memories of trauma can have profound impact on the affected individuals and communities. In the context of intergroup conflict, in the present article, we propose a novel theoretical framework to understand the long-term impact of historical trauma on contemporary intergroup relations from both victim and perpetrator perspectives. Integrating past research on intergroup conflict and the biopsychosocial model of threat and challenge, we argue that people appraise their group's past victimization and perpetration differently, either as a threat or as a challenge. Shaped by contextual factors and individual differences, these differential appraisals will subsequently influence how group members respond to contemporary intergroup conflict, with both adaptive and maladaptive consequences. This model contributes to unifying the previous research that has shown diverse effects of historical trauma on present-day intergroup dynamics. We present preliminary empirical evidence in support of the framework and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.

Social norms in digital spaces: Conflict reports and implications for technology design in the teleworking context

With the increase of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic, employees' interactions with colleagues have shifted almost exclusively to digital channels. Hence, it is critical to understand the underpinnings of successful collaboration and individual wellbeing in digital working structures. Combining qualitative experience reports and quantitative surveys from 145 teleworkers, this study sheds light on teleworking from a psychological perspective, taking social norms as a conceptual frame. The qualitative reports revealed five types of typical conflicts related to communication in the telework context, including both (1) technical problems (e.g., a bad connection) and psychological aspects such as (2) uncertainty or a lack of social feedback, (3) norm violations, (4) a lack of rules or meta-communication about appropriate behavior, and (5) digital communication barriers. Respondents' quantitative ratings of qualities of telework versus working on-site revealed benefits of telework regarding task fulfillment and efficiency, but lower levels of motivation, conflict management, leadership, team spirit, inspiration and creativity. Participants qualitative reports on perceived challenges in remote work conditions included feelings of loneliness and increased demands related to self-management, creating boundaries between private and working life, motivation and self-regulation. This paper connects these findings with theoretical concepts from psychology and human-computer interaction and discusses implications for leadership and technology design. Practical Relevance: This article discusses practical implications for leadership and technology design, e.g., interventions against conflicts in the context of digital work.

'You don't compare horrors, you just don't do that': Examining assumptions and extending the scope of comparative victim beliefs

Social psychological research on collective victimhood has often focused on comparisons between the ingroup's and outgroups' collective victimization (i.e. comparative victim beliefs such as competitive victimhood or inclusive victim beliefs). This qualitative study examines how people in different contexts of collective victimization and its aftermath make sense of items commonly used to assess comparative victim beliefs, and how they extend or challenge these constructs and their underlying assumptions. We used thematic analysis to analyse eight focus group discussions among four minority groups in the United States with historical or more recent experiences of collective victimization (Armenian Americans, Burundian refugees, Jewish Americans and Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees). Findings extend commonly assessed comparative victim beliefs and reveal participants' critical perspectives on these constructs. The findings also highlight the dialectical structure of collective victim beliefs: Participants not only endorsed but also rejected comparative victim beliefs, and relatedly described both ingroup power and outgroup power in the context of their group's victimization. These findings extend existing social psychological literature on comparative victim beliefs and intergroup relations.

Everybody hurts (sometimes): The role of victim category accessibility in prosocial responses towards victimized outgroups

Collective victimization can lead to competitiveness and reduced willingness to act on behalf of other victimized groups, but in some cases increases prosocial responses. We propose the concept of victim category accessibility (VCA) as one explanation for different reactions to victimization. Assuming that 'victims' is one among many categories into which individuals classify themselves and others, high VCA should increase the common categorization of ingroup and outgroup members as victims and increase prosocial responses towards victimized outgroups. Conversely, low VCA should increase the difficulty of identifying commonalities between ingroup and outgroup victims and reduce prosocial responses. In three studies, we develop a novel measure of VCA based on the Indirect Category Accessibility Task and demonstrate its association with willingness to act on behalf of victimized outgroups, but not ingroup members, beyond self-reported beliefs about victimization. The findings suggest a key role for VCA in understanding prosocial responses towards victimized outgroups.

Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of Shnabel and Nadler (2008), Study 4

Shnabel and Nadler (2008) assessed a needs-based model of reconciliation suggesting that in conflicts, victims and perpetrators have different psychological needs that when satisfied increase the chances of reconciliation. For instance, Shnabel and Nadler found that after a conflict, perpetrators indicated that they had a need for social acceptance and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of social acceptance was restored, whereas victims indicated that they had a need for power and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of power was restored. Gilbert (2016), as a part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), attempted to replicate these findings using different study materials but did not find support for the original effect. In an attempt to reconcile these discrepant findings, we conducted two new sets of replications—one using the RP:P protocol and another using modified materials meant to be more relatable to undergraduate participants. Teams from eight universities contributed to data collection ( N = 2,738). We did find moderation by protocol; the focal interaction from the revised protocol, but not from the RP:P protocol, replicated the interaction in the original study. We discuss differences in, and possible explanations for, the patterns of results across protocols.

Agentic and communal interaction goals in conflictual intergroup relations

Members of conflicting groups experience threats to different identity dimensions, resulting in the need to restore the aspect of identity that was threatened. Do these needs translate into specific goals in social interactions? In the present research, we examined the hypotheses that (1) experiencing one’s ingroup as illegitimately disadvantaged or victimized arouses agentic goals (to act and appear assertive and confident) when interacting with the advantaged or victimizing group, while (2) experiencing one’s ingroup as illegitimately advantaged or perpetrating transgressions arouses communal goals (to act and appear warm and trustworthy) when interacting with the disadvantaged or victimized group. Study 1 (N = 391) generally supported both hypotheses across diverse intergroup contexts involving gender, national/ethnic, and consumer identities. Study 2 (N = 122) replicated this pattern in a context of occupational identities. Study 2 further showed that the effect of ingroup role on agentic and communal intergroup goals was not moderated by participants’ general dispositional preferences for agentic and communal goals in interpersonal interactions, thus demonstrating how ingroup role exerts a distinct and robust influence on goals for interactions with other groups. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Competitive victimhood denotes group members' efforts to establish that their ingroup has suffered greater injustice than an adversarial outgroup. Previous research in contexts of structural inequality has stressed the role of the need to defend the ingroup's moral identity, rather than the need for power, in leading advantaged and disadvantaged group members to engage in competitive victimhood. Focusing on the structural inequality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (Study 1) and Israeli women and men (Study 2), we found that across all groups and contexts, power needs predicted competitive victimhood. Also, the need to protect the ingroup's moral reputation (i.e., defensive moral needs) positively predicted competitive victimhood, whereas among advantaged group members, the need to protect the ingroup's moral essence negatively predicted competitive victimhood. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that competitive victimhood correlated, positively for advantaged and negatively for disadvantaged group members, with support for policies securing realistic and symbolic resources for the disadvantaged group. Theoretical and practical implications of these results, which are consistent with the logic of the needs-based model of reconciliation, are discussed.

Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies ( N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.

Reconciliación Social como estrategia para la transformación de los conflictos socio-políticos, variables asociadas e instrumentos de medición

La reconciliación social ha sido propuesta como una de las estrategias que permite la transformación de los conflictos y el restablecimiento de las relaciones intergrupales pacíficas. El objetivo de este trabajo es hacer una revisión sistemática de la reconciliación, las variables con las que se asocia y los instrumentos para medirla. La búsqueda se hizo en Psycinfo y en la Web of Science, los resultados indican que el mayor porcentaje de artículos surge en los años 90, las publicaciones abordan conflictos que se desarrollan a lo largo de todo el planeta: América, Europa, Oriente medio y África. Las variables con las cuales se relaciona estadística y teóricamente a la reconciliación se agrupan en cinco categorias de variables: recuperación psicosocial, acercamiento de las partes confrontadas, resignificación endo y exogrupal, emociones y gestión del conflicto. Se registran 12 instrumentos con una fiabilidad adecuada para evaluar la reconciliación. Se concluye que con las cinco categorías de variables se podrían diseñar modelos explicativos y de diagnóstico que contribuyan a la promoción de los procesos de reconciliación social temprana, particularmente para aquellos paises que requieren transformar las dinámicas de confrontación violenta.

Your act is worse than mine: Perception bias in revenge situations

Theoretical reflections suggest that avengers and targets of revenge have self-serving perception biases when judging the severity of revenge acts and preceding offenses. Empirical research investigating such biases has so far focused on either the offense or the revenge act and may have confounded a perception bias with a situational selection bias (i.e., avengers and targets selecting different events in self-serving ways, so that there may be actual, as opposed to perceptual, differences in severity). The current research circumvents this shortcoming by empirically investigating this perception bias by assessing avengers' and targets' severity scores of both the offense and the revenge act, and comparing these scores with severity scores of independent raters. Results show that although there is a situational selection bias, there is also a perception bias for both avengers and targets: Both avengers and targets believe that the other person's act is worse than their own act. This perception bias may explain the existence of perpetuating revenge cycles.

From victimhood to peace activism: The potential role of personal loss and inclusive victim beliefs

Most of the literature on collective victimhood has focused on its negative consequences for conflict resolution. Only recently has the understanding emerged that collective victimhood can also play a role in reconciliation. The present research aimed to test this recent insight in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A sample of 200 Israeli Jews who participated in the 2015 Israeli–Palestinian Memorial Day ceremony organized by the Combatants for Peace organization completed online questionnaires. In line with our predictions, personal victimization (i.e., losing a significant other due to the conflict) and inclusive victim perceptions (i.e., perceptions of a “common victim identity,” namely, similarity between the ingroup’s and the outgroup’s suffering) predicted peace activism. However, perceptions of a common perpetrator identity failed to predict activism. These results were replicated in a sample of 106 Israeli Jews who participated in the 2016 ceremony. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Agents of Reconciliation: Agency-Affirmation Promotes Constructive Tendencies Following Transgressions in Low-Commitment Relationships

Conflicting parties experience threats to both their agency and morality, but the experience of agency-threat exerts more influence on their behavior, leading to relationship-destructive tendencies. Whereas high-commitment relationships facilitate constructive tendencies despite the conflict, we theorized that in low-commitment relationships, affirming the adversary's agency is a prerequisite for facilitating more constructive tendencies. Focusing on sibling conflicts, Study 1 found that when commitment was low (rather than high), agency-affirmation increased participants' constructive tendencies toward their brother/sister compared with a control/no-affirmation condition. A corresponding morality-affirmation did not affect participants' tendencies. Study 2 replicated these results in workplace conflicts and further found that the positive effect of agency-affirmation in low-commitment relationships was mediated by participants' wish to restore their morality. Study 3 induced a conflict between lab participants and manipulated their commitment. Again, in the low- (rather than high-) commitment condition, agency-affirmation increased participants' wish to restore their morality, leading to constructive behavior.

The Role of Agency and Morality in Reconciliation Processes

According to the needs-based model of reconciliation, transgressions threaten victims’ sense of agency and perpetrators’ moral image. Consequently, victims and perpetrators experience heightened needs for empowerment and acceptance, respectively. Exchange interactions (e.g., expressions of apologies and forgiveness) through which victims and perpetrators satisfy each other’s needs facilitate reconciliation. We present research that has supported the model in both interpersonal and intergroup contexts. We then extend the model to “dual” conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each other and compete over the victim status, and to intergroup contexts of structural inequality. Finally, we discuss need satisfaction outside the victim-perpetrator dyad as an intriguing avenue for future research.

Peace vision and its socio-emotional antecedents: The role of forgiveness, trust, and inclusive victim perceptions

The present study conceptualized peace vision as the view of peace as desirable, feasible, and requiring substantial concessions by both parties and examined the social-emotional factors contributing to its endorsement among Israeli Jews ( N = 400). In line with our theorizing, we found that trust in Palestinians and inclusive victim perceptions (the view that both conflicting groups have suffered due to the conflict) were significantly and positively associated with peace vision endorsement both directly and indirectly, through facilitating forgiveness. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results in terms of the sustainability of peaceful coexistence between conflicting groups.

Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict party

Third parties, particularly if neutral, have been found to promote instrumental conflict resolution. Using the needs-based model’s theoretical framework, we investigated whether third parties can also promote socioemotional reconciliation. Study 1 ( N = 124) revealed that in the context of fraud between universities, conciliatory messages from either the other conflict party or a third party sharing common identity with it increased group members’ willingness to reconcile more than equivalent messages from a neutral third party. Replicating and extending this pattern, Study 2 ( N = 177) exposed Israeli Jewish participants to texts which reminded them of historical transgressions conducted by Palestinians or against them. We found that compared to a control condition, messages supposedly conveyed by either Palestinians or Jordanians, but not by the UN, increased Israeli Jews’ willingness to reconcile with Palestinians. These effects were mediated by the extent to which the official conveying these messages was perceived as representing the other conflict party.

Gazing at suffering Gaza from suffering Sderot: Seeds of forgiveness and reconciliation amidst the turmoil?

Most studies on forgiveness and reconciliation in intergroup conflicts are conducted during the postresolution stages of conflict. The present research was conducted in the south of Israel to examine the issue of forgiveness among people currently enmeshed in active and violent conflict. Study 1 was conducted in the Israeli town of Sderot, which for more than a decade has been under frequent rocket fire from neighboring Palestinian Gaza and has also witnessed numerous Israeli retaliatory attacks on Gaza. Study 2 was conducted among residents of towns and communities close to the Gaza border during the 2014 war. We investigated the potential readiness for mutual forgiveness with Gaza residents, apology, and reparation and help to repair war damage. Mutual forgiveness received considerable support, but apology and reparations did not. Perspective-taking vis-à-vis the Palestinians predicted support for mutual forgiveness in the first but not the second study. Acceptance of moral responsibility and dismissal of exonerating cognitions regarding Israel’s conduct in Gaza predicted readiness for apology and reparations. Hence a step towards mutual forgiveness with the adversarial outgroup is feasible under active conflict mainly because it does not involve culpability.