A history of collective resilience and collective victimhood: Two sides of the same coin that explain Black Americans' present-day responses to oppression

Collective victimhood and collective resilience are two sides of the same coin. However, most literature to date has focused on the experiences and consequences of collective victimhood. In the present research, we focused on the experiences of Black Americans, a group that has a legacy of victimization and resilience. As a part of Black Americans' collective memory, we explored the nature of historical collective resilience and examined its role in explaining collective responses to present-day oppression, over and above any effect of historical collective victimhood. When they were asked to reflect on their group's history, across Studies 1 (N = 272) and 2 (N = 294), we found that Black Americans generated narratives of collective resilience. In both studies, we also found evidence that perceived historical collective resilience was linked to a greater sense of collective continuity, which, in turn, explained greater support for the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement. Our findings underscore the importance of considering narratives of resilience in a group's history and point to the way such collective resilience narratives can serve as a resource for the group in the present.

How does ingroup identification predict forgiveness in post‐conflict societies? The role of conflict narratives

People's religious identity is often the central identity in many ethnopolitical conflicts. These identities in conflict contexts may be associated with how people see conflict and their willingness to forgive the outgroup members for their wrongdoings in the past. Study 1 (N = 287) tested how religious group identification in the Northern Irish context predicted forgiveness through the endorsement of dominant conflict narratives (i.e., terrorism and independence narratives) among Protestants and Catholics. We also tested how group membership may moderate these relationships. The results showed that among Protestants, higher Protestant identification predicted less forgiveness through higher endorsement of the terrorism narrative and less endorsement of the independence narrative. Among Catholics, on the other hand, higher Catholic identification predicted stronger endorsement of the independence narrative, and in turn, less forgiveness. Study 2 (N = 526) aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a larger sample and extend them by testing the role of an alternative conflict narrative (i.e., the Northern Irish identity narrative). The results were largely replicated for the independence and terrorism narratives, and the Northern Irish identity narrative was associated with higher forgiveness across both groups. We discuss the results in terms of how ingroup identities and conflict narratives can become both facilitators of and barriers to peacebuilding in post-conflict societies.

Non-Indigenous Canadians' and Americans' moral expectations of Indigenous peoples in light of the negative impacts of the Indian Residential Schools

The historical trauma associated with the Indian Residential School (IRS) system was recently brought to the awareness of the Canadian public. Two studies investigated how the salience of this collective victimization impacted non-Indigenous Canadians' expectations that Indigenous peoples ought to derive psychological benefits (e.g., learned to appreciate life) and be morally obligated to help others. Study 1 found that modern racism was related to perceptions that Indigenous peoples psychologically benefitted from the IRS experience, which in turn, predicted greater expectations of moral obligation. Study 2 replicated the relations among racism, benefit finding, and moral obligation among non-Indigenous Canadians (historical perpetrators of the harm done) and Americans (third-party observers). Americans were uniquely responsive to a portrayal of Indigenous peoples in Canada as strong versus vulnerable. Factors that distance observers from the victim (such as racism or third-party status) appear to influence perceptions of finding benefit in victimization experiences and expectations of moral obligation.

Multiple perspectives in conflict settings: An introduction

In this introduction to the special thematic section, we discuss the pre-eminent research orientation in the social and political psychology of peace and conflict, its current critiques, and what more multiple perspectives can add to the field. First, we outline key characteristics of the ‘simple road’ to conflict settings: a simple, often binary, definition of the sides involved, a focus on one conflict-induced negative outcome and on one causal pathway leading to it, and a motivation to derive policy recommendations from empirical findings. Second, we discuss constructivist, normative, ecological, and pragmatic critiques of the ‘simple road’, as four distinct strands grounded in different epistemological assumptions, but converging on the account that research priorities need to be revised and methodologies be expanded. Third, engaging with the fundamental questions raised by the critiques, we make a plea for more multiple perspectives: for multiple voices among research participants (more diversified samples), for multiple positions from where to listen to these voices (more time-points and multi-factorial approaches), and for multiple sensors with which to capture them (more mixed methods). We highlight how the different contributions to the section provide creative developments along one or several of the three axes. On the basis of the concrete inspiring examples they provide, we argue that a field growing along these axes would increase its capacity to bridge its most important critical developments and to expand its scope in relevant directions.