Close or Distant Past? The Role of Temporal Distance in Responses to Intergroup Violence From Victim and Perpetrator Perspectives

Abstract

In two different intergroup contexts, three studies investigated the role of temporal distance in responses to intergroup violence from both victim and perpetrator perspectives. In the context of the conflict between Serbs and Bosniaks, Study 1 showed that whereas increased subjective temporal distance predicted less support for justice-restoring efforts and less outgroup empathy among the perpetrator group (Serbs), it predicted more conciliatory, pro-outgroup attitudes among the victim group (Bosniaks). Furthermore, Bosniaks perceived the war as temporally closer than did Serbs. In the context of the U.S.–Iran conflict, Study 2 provided a partial conceptual replication of Study 1 and demonstrated that ingroup glorification motivated more temporal distancing among perpetrators and less temporal distancing among victims. Study 3 further established the causal effects of temporal distance on intergroup outcomes, and that these effects were moderated by glorification. Implications for post-conflict peacebuilding are discussed.

National glorification and attachment differentially predict support for intergroup conflict resolution: Scrutinizing cross‐country generalizability

“…In a variety of intergroup contexts, research has demonstrated that national glorification is a powerful predictor of defensive, hostile intergroup attitudes and even support for intergroup violence. High levels of glorification, for example, are associated with more resentment towards the outgroup (Uluğ et al., 2021), stronger denial of collective guilt and responsibility for the ingroup's moral wrongdoings (Bilali, 2013; Roccas et al., 2006), less third‐party support for genocide intervention (Leidner, 2015), more moral disengagement from ingroup‐committed harm and subsequent resistance to justice measures (Leidner et al., 2010; Li et al., 2021), and a shift from endorsing violence‐condemning towards violence‐legitimizing moral principles when evaluating ingroup‐committed violence (Leidner & Castano, 2012). In the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, glorification was also found to promote a desire for retributive justice, which in turn predicted support for non‐normative collective action (Selvanathan & Leidner, 2020).…”

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

“…But more often than not, group members react defensively to reminders of collective harm doing (for similar arguments, see Bilali, 2013 ; Bilali et al, 2019 ; Li & Leidner, 2019 ). Such reactions can range from adopting strategies to disengage from the immorality of the group’s actions ( Bandura, 1999 ; Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006 ; Leidner et al, 2010 ), for example, by making defensive attributions that attempt to exonerate the group ( Hirschberger, Kende, et al, 2016 ) or by attributing the crimes committed to external causes ( Doosje & Branscombe, 2003 ; Imhoff et al, 2017 ), to distancing themselves from the wrongdoing ( Li et al, 2021 ; Peetz et al, 2010 ) to actively moralizing the harm committed ( Giner-Sorolla et al, 2011 ; Leidner & Castano, 2012 ) to resisting future efforts to restore justice and peace ( Leidner et al, 2010 ; Li et al, 2020 ) and to claiming competitive victimhood ( Sullivan et al, 2012 ).…”

“…To complicate this issue further, subjective perceptions of time can also be an outcome of threat appraisals or challenge appraisals. Past research has shown that compared with victims, perpetrators tend to perceive the same traumatic event as more distant in time ( Li et al, 2021 ). Using the current proposed framework, subjective temporal distancing among perpetrators can be seen as an avoidance coping mechanism resulted from a threat appraisal based on perceptions of overwhelming demands (i.e., loss of morality).…”

Collective victimhood and conflict-related attitudes: A meta-analysis

“…We also investigate two non-attitudinal outcomes -emotions and cognitive perspectivescoding both in terms of whether they facilitate intergroup approach or distancing . Emotions that facilitate approach behaviors and attitudes include ones like empathy (e.g., "I feel compassion for the Bosniaks/Serbs" (Li et al 2021)), while distancing emotions include fear or anger (e.g., "I feel angry for the way that the Japanese treated the Chinese in the Nanjing Massacre" (Zagefka et al 2010)) and angst (e.g., "I feel concerned that the future vitality of Ukrainian language and culture are in jeopardy" (Chayinska, Kende, and Wohl 2022)), among others. 7 We analyze these on the same scale, reverse-coding approach emotions such that we estimate the effect of collective victimhood on distancing emotions.…”