Self-serving beliefs about science: Science justifies my weaknesses (but not other people's)

This research explored the strategic beliefs that people have about science and the extent to which it can explain moral and immoral behaviors. Although people do not believe that science is able to explain certain aspects of their mind, they might nevertheless accept a scientific explanation for their immoral behaviors if that explanation is exculpatory. In a first study, participants reflected on moral and immoral deeds that they performed or that other people performed. Participants were somewhat skeptic that science can account for people's behavior-except for when they reflected on the wrongdoings that they committed. Two further studies suggest that strategic belief in science arises because it enables external attributions for the behavior, outside of the wrongdoers' control. Implications are discussed for science understanding and communication.

Three Fish at One Hook? Future-Oriented, Reconciliatory, and Defensive Claims for Historical Closure as Expressions of the Same Defensive Desire

Historical perpetrator groups seek to shield themselves from image threat by advocating for closing the discussion of their crimes. However, from a broader theoretical perspective, such demand for historical closure (HC) may also reflect willingness to reconcile with the victim group or to focus on the future rather than the past. In nine studies across four different contexts (Germany, United States, Italy, and Australia; N = 3405), we analyzed whether these three facets of HC (defensive, reconciliatory, and future-oriented) indeed substantially differ. Contrary to expectations, nomological network analyses suggested that all three facets reflect the same defensive desire (Studies 1a-2c) and are perceived as overall similar from a third-party perspective (Study 3). Finally, all three HC facets showed a positive trend toward costly avoidance of confrontation with the ingroup's perpetrator past (Studies 4a-c). We discuss implications for (and against) a more nuanced understanding of the demand for HC.

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.