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.

'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.

Victimhood beliefs are linked to willingness to engage in intergroup contact with a former adversary through empathy and trust

After intergroup conflicts end, beliefs about past suffering of the ingroup compared to an outgroup influence relations between former adversaries. In Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, we simultaneously examined the effects of inclusive victimhood (i.e., a belief that both the ingroup and a former adversary suffered similarly) and competitive victimhood (i.e., a belief that the ingroup suffered more than a former adversary) on willingness to engage in contact with a former adversary, a precursor of positive changes in postconflict societies. In one correlational ( nAlbanians = 159; nCroat s = 227) and two experimental studies ( NAlbanians = 161; NCroats = 341, preregistered), inclusive victimhood was linked to higher willingness to engage in contact with former adversaries through higher empathy (Studies 1 to 3) and trust (Studies 1 and 2). In contrast, competitive victimhood was associated with lower willingness to engage in contact through lower empathy (Study 1) and trust (Studies 1 and 3). We discuss the practical implications of our findings for interventions in postconflict societies.

Bereavement in political conflict: Ideological meaning-making and dialogue

In this research article we explored the dialogical mechanisms of ideological meaning making in the aftermath of traumatic loss, via descriptive phenomenological qualitative research. Thirty-three individuals who lost a close family member in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were interviewed regarding the dialogues they had about their ideology in the aftermath of their loss. Analysis identified four types of dialogues that assisted in ideological meaning making: dialogue with political figures, dialogue with and through the media, dialogue with the deceased, and dialogue with radicalized bereaved individuals. Applications of our findings to the constructivist theory of bereavement 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.