While the Holocaust is widely regarded by Germans as one of the worst human atrocities, they differ in their readiness to express guilt or, in contrast, in their demand to close this chapter of history. We propose that such demand for historical closure (HC) is particularly pronounced among individuals high in collective narcissism and is systematically related to reduced collective guilt. Across three studies (N = 1383), collective narcissism was significantly related to demand for HC, even when controlling for national identification and national pride. Moreover, collective narcissism was associated with reduced guilt only via demanding HC, but not via the defensive strategies generalization or moral delegitimization of the victims. Yet, collective narcissism was associated via all three defensive strategies with actual donations to support Holocaust survivors. We discuss how demanding HC helps group members to shield their ingroup from its negative past, thus alleviating aversive feelings of collective guilt.

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.

Germany’s past is marked not only by the atrocities of the Holocaust, but also by a history of collective attempts to come to terms with these crimes. The present paper focuses on the previously rarely explored consequences of perceived success in dealing with a perpetrator past for the moral ingroup-image and the demand for an end to the discussion of this chapter of history (i.e., demand for historical closure). In one correlational study (N = 982) and three experimental studies (N = 904), we found robust evidence for a positive association between perceived success in dealing with the Nazi past and perceived ingroup morality. The results on the assumed influence of success on claims for historical closure, mediated by morality, were only partly supportive and inconsistent, particularly when controlling for political orientation and collective narcissism. However, final single-paper meta-analyses revealed a significant association between perceived ingroup morality and demand for historical closure (K = 5), as well as a small but significant effect of success (vs. failure) on demand for historical closure (K = 4), even when accounting for political orientation. Implications for understanding ethical self-views in historical perpetrator groups and recurring debates about a ‘Schlussstrich’ on the German Nazi past are discussed.

No abstract

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, US, Italy, 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.