Competition over collective victimhood recognition: When perceived lack of recognition for past victimization is associated with negative attitudes towards another victimized group

Abstract

Groups that perceive themselves as victims can engage in “competitive victimhood.” We propose that, in some societal circumstances, this competition bears on the recognition of past sufferings—rather than on their relative severity—fostering negative intergroup attitudes. Three studies are presented. Study 1, a survey among Sub‐Saharan African immigrants in Belgium (N = 127), showed that a sense of collective victimhood was associated with more secondary anti‐Semitism. This effect was mediated by a sense of lack of victimhood recognition, then by the belief that this lack of recognition was due to that of Jews' victimhood, but not by competition over the severity of the sufferings. Study 2 replicated this mediation model among Muslim immigrants (N = 125). Study 3 experimentally demonstrated the negative effect of the unequal recognition of groups' victimhood on intergroup attitudes in a fictional situation involving psychology students (N = 183). Overall, these studies provide evidence that struggle for victimhood recognition can foster intergroup conflict.

The case for and causes of intraminority solidarity in support for reparations: Evidence from community and student samples in Canada

“…Past research suggests reminders of collective victimhood may negatively affect intergroup relations with an adversarial group (cf. Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012;Noor, Vollhardt, Mari, & Nadler, 2017;Schori-Eyal, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2014;Schori-Eyal, Klar, & Ben-Ami, 2017;Schori-Eyal, Klar, Roccas, & McNeill, 2017;Wohl & Branscombe, 2008) and promote victimization comparisons among such groups (e.g., De Guissmé & Licata, 2017). Yet, we propose such reminders may not always lead to such negative consequences.…”

The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four diaspora groups

“…This helps avoid a one-sided and limited theoretical view of collective victimhood that may not adequately represent peoples' experiences. For example, our findings suggest the need to integrate the needs-based model of reconciliation (which posits that victim groups desire empowerment: Shnabel & Nadler, 2008 with work on peoples' need for acknowledgment of the ingroup's experiences of being targeted and vulnerable (De Guissmé & Licata, 2017;Hameiri & Nadler, 2017;Vollhardt et al, 2014); and to address both. Leaving out one of these two seemingly opposite dimensions may be experienced as not recognizing the complexity of the ingroup's experience (which is, anecdotally, feedback we have received from participants in open-ended questions included in quantitative studies, often expressing anger and frustration with the study's limited focus).…”

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

“…As a result, the Holocaust is often considered the prototype of genocide in these societies, leading to less readiness to acknowledge mass atrocities that do not match the central features of this prototype (Mazur & Vollhardt, ). The perceived discrepancies in the degree of societal acknowledgment of the Holocaust compared to the ingroup’s collective victimization predicted negative attitudes towards Jews among sub‐Saharan African immigrants and Muslims in Belgium (De Guissmé & Licata, ). Similarly, in a qualitative study, members of four historical victim groups made frequent comparisons of the acknowledgment or denial of their group’s victimization with acknowledgment of the Holocaust; these comparisons often included notions of envy or even resentment regarding the differential acknowledgment (Twali et al, ; Vollhardt & Twali, ).…”