Figure 5 - uploaded by Yechiel Klar
Content may be subject to copyright.
1. The Klar (2016) model: The four moral obligations as a foldable fan Originally appeared in: Klar, Y. "Four Moral Obligations in the Aftermath of Historical Ingroup Victimization." Current Opinion in Psychology 58, 11 (2016): 54-58.
Source publication
The sense of historical victimhood is indubitably a focal part of the Jewish and Israeli historical legacies. Three such legacies are reviewed: Victimhood as a perpetual density; victimhood as imposing supremacist separateness from non-Jews, and victimhood that necessitates caring for the oppressed ' strangers.' These varied and often incompatible...
Citations
... One of the main reasons the government's policy regarding asylum seekers has polarized the Israeli-Jewish society might have to do with the Jewish people's particular history as the victims of the Holocaust (Klar, 2019;Klar, Schori-Eyal, & Klar, 2013). Previous research has shown that at least some members of groups that were victimized feel that it is a moral imperative, or mandate, for their group to help other victimized groups (see Klar et al., 2013;Vollhardt, 2015;Warner, Wohl, & Branscombe, 2014). ...
The current research examined whether for a message that is based on the paradoxical thinking principles—i.e., providing extreme, exaggerated, or even absurd views, that are congruent with the held views of the message recipients—to be effective, it needs to hit a ‘sweet spot’ and lead to a contrast effect. That is, it moderates the view of the message's recipients. In the framework of attitudes toward African refugees and asylum seekers in Israel by Israeli Jews, we found that compared to more moderate messages, an extreme, but not too extreme, message was effective in leading to unfreezing for high morally convicted recipients. The very extreme message similarly led to high levels of surprise and identity threat as the extreme message that was found to be effective. However, it was so extreme and absurd that it was rejected automatically. This was manifested in high levels of disagreement compared to all other messages, rendering it less effective compared to the extreme, paradoxical thinking, message. We discuss these findings’ practical and theoretical implications for the paradoxical thinking conceptual framework as an attitude change intervention, and for social judgment theory.
... On the other hand, a long history of persecution and historical victimization (or lack thereof) might well contribute to the viability of a victim narrative. For example, in contrast to the U.S., which is typically regarded as an economic and military superpower, Israel's national identity is often perceived as being founded in historical victimization, represented through persecution of Jews through the centuries, including the most recent genocide perpetrated in the Holocaust [1,12,20]. Thus, while both nations might be regarded as top dog in the particular conflicts in which they are currently engaged, among other factors, Israel's links to historical victimization might render it more credible as a nation engaged in acts that are necessary to ensure its very survival. ...
Because the underdog in a conflict typically gains the support of observers, nations will often adopt a narrative that persuades both their domestic following and international allies that they are the true victim in the conflict. Three survey studies were conducted to assess the perceptions of citizens of a third-party observer nation (Canada) in relation to two nations in conflict that differ in their historical persecution, namely the U.S. and Israel. Perceptions of the vulnerability of their safety and survival, and their strength to protect themselves against their opponents were hypothesized to mediate differences in the perceived justification for each nation’s conflict actions. Study 1 (N = 91) supported this mediational model, with the U.S. seen as less vulnerable and more powerful than Israel, and perceptions of vulnerability accounting for differences in the justifiability of their respective conflict actions. Study 2 (N = 315) further demonstrated a moderating effect of Canadians’ shared identity with the nations in conflict; only at lower levels of a shared identity was Israel perceived to be more vulnerable and the mediated relation with the perceived justifiability of its conflict actions retained. Study 3 was conducted 10 years later (2018), administering measures to an independent sample of Canadian participants (N = 300). Canadians were found to be significantly less likely to share a common identity with Americans than previously; once again, the mediating role of the perceived vulnerability of the nations in conflict and the justifiability of their actions was conditional on shared identification. The findings contribute to understanding influences on the credibility of victim claims by nations in conflict, as well as implications for how their actions are construed by citizens of a third-party observer nation.
This chapter discusses divergent perceived moral obligations that have been derived in Jewish Israeli society from the ingroup’s experience of collective victimization in the Holocaust. These obligations are to never be a passive victim again, to never forsake ingroup members in need, to never be a passive bystander when others are being harmed, and to never be a perpetrator yourself. These perceived moral obligations result in divergent attitudes and behaviors, ranging from solidarity with other victims to legitimization of violence against perceived enemies. The authors discuss the role of religious narratives (in this case, from the Exodus story in the Bible/Torah) in shaping these lessons of collective victimhood. The chapter briefly reviews empirical research on related collective victim beliefs—perpetual ingroup victimization orientation (PIVO) and fear of victimizing (FOV)—in several different contexts (Israel, Palestine, and Northern Ireland).
