The rhetorical complexity of competitive and common victimhood in conversational discourse

McNeill, Andrew; Pehrson, Samuel; Stevenson, Clifford

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2255

Cited by 40 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second limitation concerns with McNeill, Pehrson, and Stevenson's () recent criticism of existing research on competitive victimhood for focusing on interindividual variability in expressions of victimhood while overlooking intraindividual variability. McNeill et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Kahalon

Shnabel

Halabi

et al. 2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competitive victimhood denotes group members' efforts to establish that their ingroup has suffered greater injustice than an adversarial outgroup. Previous research in contexts of structural inequality has stressed the role of the need to defend the ingroup's moral identity, rather than the need for power, in leading advantaged and disadvantaged group members to engage in competitive victimhood. Focusing on the structural inequality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (Study 1) and Israeli women and men (Study 2), we found that across all groups and contexts, power needs predicted competitive victimhood. Also, the need to protect the ingroup's moral reputation (i.e., defensive moral needs) positively predicted competitive victimhood, whereas among advantaged group members, the need to protect the ingroup's moral essence negatively predicted competitive victimhood. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that competitive victimhood correlated, positively for advantaged and negatively for disadvantaged group members, with support for policies securing realistic and symbolic resources for the disadvantaged group. Theoretical and practical implications of these results, which are consistent with the logic of the needs-based model of reconciliation, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Kahalon

Shnabel

Halabi

et al. 2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also possible that participants' answers shifted in the process of the discussions. Although it was beyond the scope of this article to analyze the conversational and discursive processes of these discussions (e.g., McNeill et al, 2017), we reported which themes were more common than others. However, given that not every group member was asked to speak to each point that was raised, it is impossible to provide exact frequencies of endorsement.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…We focused on the semantic, explicit level of the content (Boyatzis, 1998;Braun & Clarke, 2006). We did not analyze the group dynamics, or the rhetoric and discourse of these conversations (e.g., McNeill, Pehrson, & Stevenson, 2017), because this was beyond the scope of our research questions. Instead, our goal was to map out themes in peoples' discussion of the individual and intragroup processes resulting from their ingroup's collective victimization.…”

Section: Analytic Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Vollhardt

Nair²

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most social psychological research on collective victimhood has examined its consequences for intergroup relations. Less attention has been paid to individual and intragroup processes associated with collective victimization, which the present study aimed to examine. We conducted eight focus group interviews among four diaspora communities (Armenian Americans, Burundian refugees, Jewish Americans, Nepali‐speaking Bhutanese refugees) with historical or more recent experiences of collective victimization. Thematic analysis revealed three major foci shared across communities (but with different emphases within each focus), which included juxtaposed themes that highlight the two‐sided nature of experiencing and coping with collective victimization and its aftermath: Vulnerability and struggle versus resilience and strength, loss versus continuity and renewal, and silence about versus transmission of knowledge about ingroup victimization. These findings illustrate how groups integrate seemingly opposite poles of collective victimization that characterize this complex and multifaceted experience, which has important theoretical implications.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the victim status may threaten the group’s sense of power and agency and be stigmatizing in that it implies weakness and vulnerability (Ferguson, Burgess, & Hollywood, ; Shnabel & Nadler, ; Vollhardt & Nair, ). Therefore, the adoption of the victim status is also flexible and rhetorical, and it can be used or rejected in different contexts and for different reasons (Ferguson et al, ; McNeill, Pehrson, & Stevenson, ). In the following, we further discuss expressions of victimhood from the perspective of victim and perpetrator groups.…”

Section: Construals Of Collective Violence Among Victim and Perpetratmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bilali

Vollhardt

2019

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups in conflict develop strikingly different construals of the same violent events. These clashing perceptions of past violence can have detrimental consequences for intergroup relations and might provoke new hostilities.In this article, we integrate and juxtapose what we know about construals of collective violence by delineating the different dimensions along which these construals differ between victim and perpetrator groups: regarding the question of who is the victim, who is responsible for the harm doing, what the perpetrator's intent was, how severe the violence was, and when it took place. Then, we discuss the individual-and group-level factors (e.g., collective narratives, social identities) that shape these construals, as well as their implications for attitudes regarding the conflict and support for relevant policies. We distinguish two different core motives that drive construals and their outcomes among victim and perpetrator groups: Perpetrator groups try to cope with moral identity threats and preserve a positive image of the ingroup, while victim groups try to protect their ingroup from future harm doing and desire acknowledgment of their group's experiences. Lastly, we discuss implications for strategies and interventions to address victim and perpetrator groups' divergent perspectives of collective violence.

show abstract

The rhetorical complexity of competitive and common victimhood in conversational discourse

Cited by 40 publications

References 55 publications

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About