When Suffering Begets Suffering: The Psychology of Competitive Victimhood Between Adversarial Groups in Violent Conflicts

Abstract

Inter-group competitive victimhood (CV) describes the efforts of members of groups involved in violent conflicts to establish that their group has suffered more than their adversarial group. Such efforts contribute to conflicts’ escalation and impede their peaceful resolution. CV stems from groups’ general tendency to compete with each other, along with the deep sense of victimization resulting from conflicts. The authors point to biases that contribute to groups’ engagement in CV, describe five dimensions of victimhood over which groups may compete, and contend that such competition serves various functions that contribute to the maintenance of conflicts. Drawing on the Needs-Based Model, they suggest that CV may reflect groups’
motivations to restore power or moral acceptance. They then review evidence of the negative consequences of CV for inter-group forgiveness and suggest potential strategies to reduce CV. Finally, the authors discuss potential moderators and directions for future research.

Full text

Personality and Social Psychology Review
16(4) 351 –374
© 2012 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc.
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088868312440048
http://pspr.sagepub.com
Victimhood experiences can bear catastrophic consequences
for inter-group relationships, as recently demonstrated by
leaders in different parts of the world (e.g., in former Yugo-
slavia and Rwanda) who successfully led their followers into
violent conflicts with their historical perpetrators by evoking
their past and sometimes ancient victimhood experiences
(Ignatieff, 1993; MacDonald, 2002). Yet, social psychology
has only begun to probe the psychological underpinnings of
these collective wounds and their implications for inter-
group relationships (see Bar-Tal, 2000; Nadler & Liviatan,
2006; Nadler & Shnabel, 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice,
2008a, 2008b; Staub, 2006). The present article seeks to
expand this work by developing the concept of inter-group
competitive victimhood (CV), which refers to a group’s moti-
vation and consequent efforts to establish that it has suffered
more than its adversaries. Tragically, CV contributes to con-
flicts’ continuation, escalation, and the impediment of poten-
tial resolutions. To illustrate, as a result of CV, each of the
conflicting parties may see it as the other party’s responsibil-
ity to initiate actions toward ending the conflict.
Our analysis of CV focuses on contexts of direct violence
in which adversarial groups repeatedly aggress against each
other with the intention to harm or kill a great number of
people (Galtung, 1969). Such contexts often leave the parties
involved with a deep sense of victimhood and the belief that
they are the “true” victims of the conflict (Bar-Tal, 2000).
The phenomenon of CV is not limited to contexts of adver-
sarial relationships, however. For example, nonadversarial
groups who are victims of the same (or different) perpetrator
group(s) may compare and compete over the severity of their
suffering. To illustrate, gays, Jews, or Romani people may
compete over their relative degree of suffering due to their
persecution by the Nazi regime. Furthermore, CV may arise
in conflicts between individuals or between materially/
socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups within the
same society (i.e., contexts characterized by structural vio-
lence; Galtung, 1969). Indeed, we occasionally borrow
insights from research conducted in these contexts. For
example, because social-psychological research on victim-
hood within interpersonal relationships is rapidly advancing
(Exline, Worthington, Hill, & McCullough, 2003) whereas
440048PSRXXX10.1177/1088868312440048Noor
et al.Personality and Social Psychology Review
2012
1Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
2Tel Aviv University, Israel
3Tel-Aviv Yaffo Academic College, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Masi Noor, Department of Applied Social Sciences, Psychology,
Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury,
CT1 1QU, Kent, UK
Email: masi.noor@canterbury.ac.uk
When Suffering Begets Suffering: The
Psychology of Competitive Victimhood
Between Adversarial Groups in Violent
Conflicts
Masi Noor1, Nurit Shnabel2, Samer Halabi3, and Arie Nadler2
Abstract
Inter-group competitive victimhood (CV) describes the efforts of members of groups involved in violent conflicts to establish
that their group has suffered more than their adversarial group. Such efforts contribute to conflicts’ escalation and impede
their peaceful resolution. CV stems from groups’ general tendency to compete with each other, along with the deep sense of
victimization resulting from conflicts. The authors point to biases that contribute to groups’ engagement in CV, describe five
dimensions of victimhood over which groups may compete, and contend that such competition serves various functions that
contribute to the maintenance of conflicts. Drawing on the Needs-Based Model, they suggest that CV may reflect groups’
motivations to restore power or moral acceptance. They then review evidence of the negative consequences of CV for
inter-group forgiveness and suggest potential strategies to reduce CV. Finally, the authors discuss potential moderators and
directions for future research.
Keywords
competitive victimhood, inter-group relationships, violent conflicts, victims, perpetrators

352 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
victimhood within contexts of inter-group relationships is
relatively understudied, we sometimes rely on theoretical
and empirical evidence on the interpersonal level.1
Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of the concept of CV within
contexts other than violent conflicts between adversarial
groups is beyond the scope of the current article.
A number of historians, social scientists, and journalists
have observed and discussed groups’ tendencies to engage in
competition over their victim status (e.g., Brennan, 2008;
Buruma, 2002; Jensen, 2002; Melendy, 2005; Rothberg,
2009; Woolford & Wolejszo, 2006). However, these discus-
sions mainly relate to competition between different victim
groups of the same (or different) perpetrator(s) (e.g., Jews
vs. Gypsy survivors of the Holocaust; Woolford & Wolejszo,
2006) rather than on competition between adversarial groups
that victimized each other, which is the focus of the present
analysis. In addition, the goal of previous analyses has been
primarily to shed light on specific historical and political
contexts (e.g., the Rwandan genocide; Mamdani, 2002)
rather than on general social-psychological mechanisms and
processes that operate across contexts, which is the purpose
of the present article.
Within social psychology, several researchers have
depicted phenomena that are closely related to CV. For
example, Bronfenbrenner (1961) coined the term mirror
image to describe how during the cold war, the Americans
and the Soviets viewed each other as untrustworthy and irra-
tional aggressors whose actions and policies exacerbated the
conflict. This mirror image of the other group validated each
group’s binary perception of reality as consisting of “good
guys” (us) and “bad guys” (them). As we will discuss, these
perceptions of exclusive social roles (good or evil) contrib-
ute to groups’ engagement in CV. Yet another example can
be found in Bar-Tal’s (2007) analysis of the psychological
repertoires of group-based emotions and cognitions resulting
from intractable conflicts. He suggests that these repertoires
lead groups to view the world from a victim perspective. The
present work builds on this analysis and suggests that such
perspectives are likely to contribute to CV.2
As can be seen, several concepts that are related to CV
have been discussed in social psychology and related disci-
plines. The goal of the present article is to fill a conceptual
gap in the field by integrating these ideas into a comprehen-
sive theoretical framework that formally defines CV and
analyzes its antecedents, dimensions, functions, conse-
quences, and moderators in contexts of violent conflicts
between adversarial groups.
We begin our analysis by defining inter-group CV, pre-
senting its theoretical premises, and identifying basic pro-
cesses likely to contribute to it. We describe the psychological
mechanisms that underlie competition of this nature, at the
individual and collective levels. We then classify the dimen-
sions of victimhood over which groups may compete and
identify the intra- and inter-group psychological functions of
such competition. Based on the logic of the Needs-Based
Model (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008), we examine different moti-
vations that may underlie CV. We then review empirical data
from various contexts of inter-group conflict that examine the
impact of CV on inter-group forgiveness and reconciliation
attitudes (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008;
Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a, 2008b; Noor, Gonzalez,
Musa, & Carrasco, 2010). We also propose several psycho-
logical strategies, based on the principles of the Needs-Based
Model, the Common In-Group Identity Model (CIIM;
Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), and other relevant works (e.g.,
Vollhardt, 2009), that may have the potential to reduce groups’
tendencies to engage in CV. We conclude by discussing
potential moderators of individuals’ and groups’ tendencies to
engage in CV and outline directions for future research.
Inter-Group CV: Definition and Basic
Processes
A recurrent insight put forward in the social-psychological
literature regarding the nature of inter-group relationships is
that groups often compete with one another. Competitive
processes are at the core of inter-group relationships, par-
ticularly those defined by conflict over material or social
resources (Blumer, 1958; Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone,
Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Pratto & Glasford, 2008; Schopler et
al., 2001; Sherif, 1966).
Another recurrent insight is that prolonged inter-group
violence leaves the involved groups with a deep sense of vic-
timhood, often irrespective of their differential access to
material and social power and their respective roles in the
conflict (Bar-Tal & Salomon, 2006; Nadler & Saguy, 2003;
Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a, 2008b; Staub, 2003, 2006).
Victimhood can be experienced through one’s direct expo-
sure to an out-group’s acts of victimization (e.g., the per-
sonal suffering of injury or loss) or indirectly through
witnessing fellow in-group members suffer at the hands of
the out-group3 (Lickel, Miller, Sentstrom, Denson, &
Schamder, 2006; Staub, 2006). Once victimization experi-
ences become public accounts, individual suffering takes on
a social dimension with psychological and political conse-
quences for inter-group relationships (Rosland, 2009).
Combining groups’ general tendency to compete with
each other with their propensity to view their own group as
the victimized group of a violent conflict provides the basic
premise for the phenomenon of inter-group CV (Noor,
Brown, Gonzalez, et al., 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice,
2008a, 2008b). In the CV state, members of conflicting
groups experience a strong wish—and thus also strive—to
establish that their in-group was subjected to more injustice
and suffering at the hands of the out-group than the other
way around. We expect CV to operate at both the collective
and individual group member levels (for a similar conceptual
distinction, see Ohad & Bar-Tal, 2009). Thus, a group could
use the public sphere to create a particular historical narra-
tive about itself, for example, through media coverage of the

Noor et al. 353
conflict or speeches by the group’s leaders to construct a dis-
course that revolves around CV for the whole group as a col-
lective. At the same time, group members may individually
differ from each other in their tendency to engage in CV. For
example, group members who are highly identified with
their groups are likely to show a stronger tendency toward
CV than group members with weaker in-group identification
(as discussed in the “Moderators” section below).
It is worth inquiring, however, why and how groups man-
age to perceive themselves as the exclusive victim of a con-
flict even though objectively—almost by definition— contexts
that give rise to CV involve mutual victimization. In other
words, even if one group experienced greater loss than the
other—to the extent that loss and suffering can be objec-
tively and accurately quantified—it is clear that the other
group must have undergone severe suffering as well. How
can this suffering be entirely dismissed? For example, how
can the Hutus in Rwanda compete over the victim’s role
(Staub, 2003) after committing the notoriously brutal geno-
cide (des Forges, 1999) of the Tutsi population? At the same
time, how can the Tutsis dismiss their role in oppressing and
victimizing the Hutu people, before and after the genocide,
and within and outside Rwanda (Mamdani, 2002)? Another
question that is also worth inquiring is why conflicting
groups are attracted to the victims’ role, which is associated
with helplessness and humiliation.
The first part of the present article aims to provide some
social-psychological answers to the above questions by elab-
orating on (a) the basic conditions that give rise to CV in
violent conflicts as well as (b) the various biases, goals, and
psychological motivations that contribute to the formation
and maintenance of CV (see Figure 1). We discuss these pro-
cesses in the following sections.
Psychological Mechanisms Underlying CV
Several psychological mechanisms underlie the tendency to
engage in CV. In this section, we first present the mecha-
nisms that operate at the individual level (i.e., mechanisms
that influence individual group members to compete over
their group’s share of victimhood) and then specify the ones
that operate at the collective level (i.e., mechanisms that
motivate a certain society as a whole to pursue the exclusive
victim’s role).
COMPETITIVE
VICTIMHOOD
Dimensions of victimhood:
Physical
Material
Cultural
Psychological
Illegitimacy of harm
UNDERLYING MECHANISMS:
Cognitive and motivational biases:
Individual level:
-Moral typecasting
-Social comparison
-Magnitude gap (estimated
severity/immorality)
-Biased memory
Collective level:
-Biased collective memory
-Biased collective accounts of intergroup
conflicts
Psychological Motivations:
- Restoration of in-group's moral image
- Restoration of in-group's sense of power
FUNCTIONS OF CV:
- Bolstering in-group cohesiveness
-
Justifying in-group violence
-
Denying responsibility, avoiding negative collective emotions and entitlement for compensation
- Recruiting moral and material support from non-involved parties
SENSE OF VICTIMIZATION COMPETITIVE MIND SET
OUTGROUP ATTITUDES: REDUCED FORGIVENESS AND
RECONCILIATION
Figure 1. Antecedents and consequences of the motivational state of CV

354 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
Individual-Level Mechanisms
Moral typecasting. A basic cognitive process that may
motivate group members to engage in CV is moral typecast-
ing. This refers to the tendency to classify moral actors into
mutually exclusive roles of agents (i.e., those who have the
capacity to do right or wrong) and patients (i.e., those who
are the passive targets of right or wrong acts), when making
moral judgments (Gray & Wegner, 2009). To illustrate, once
one is described as the recipient of good or evil (i.e., as a
moral patient), one is perceived as less capable of perform-
ing good or evil actions (i.e., as a moral agent). For example,
a person who is described as genetically sensitive to pain is
perceived by participants as less responsible for stealing a
car compared with a person who is not sensitive to pain.
Similarly, an increase in the perception of one’s moral agency
leads to a decrease in the perception of one’s moral patience.
For example, although, objectively, one’s blameworthy
behavior is not necessarily related to one’s sensitivity to
pain, learning that one has behaved in a blameworthy man-
ner lead participants to judge one as less sensitive to pain
(Gray & Wegner, 2009).
These processes of moral typecasting were found in con-
texts of interpersonal transgressions, where the participants
who made the moral judgments had no particular motivation
to condemn or justify either of the parties involved in the
transgressions. Applying these processes to our analysis,
members of groups involved in a conflict are likely to per-
ceive the victim identity as dichotomous and nondivisible:
Only one group—either the in-group or the out-group—can
be the “real” victim of the conflict (Noor, Brown, & Prentice,
2008a, 2008b). Furthermore, given their general motivation
to maintain positive in-group identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979),
group members are likely to cast their in-group in the role of
the victim and their out-group in the role of the perpetrator.
Social comparison. Group members’ engagement in CV
may be further encouraged by the general human tendency to
refer to other individuals and groups as a benchmark against
which oneself and one’s in-group are compared, particularly
when absolute, objective criteria for assessment are absent
(Festinger, 1954; Guimond, 2006; Mussweiler & Bodenhau-
sen, 2002). While such social comparison processes are par-
tially driven by a desire to gain accurate knowledge about
oneself (Festinger, 1954), they are also driven by the motiva-
tion for self-enhancement. Thus, as suggested by the Social
Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), group members
may help achieve a positive evaluation of their in-group by
downward comparisons with other out-groups. This is
accomplished by choosing comparison dimensions on which
the in-group does well or on which the out-group is thought
to do poorly (Wills, 1981). Despite this generally defensive
nature of social comparison processes, under certain circum-
stances the results of inter-group social comparisons can
nevertheless be threatening. According to the Self-Esteem
Maintenance model (Tesser, 1988) when a social comparison
reveals that a relevant other has outperformed them on an
ego-relevant dimension, people feel a threat to their self-
esteem and take actions to alleviate this threat. By applying
the Self-Esteem Maintenance model to the case of violent
inter-group conflicts, we suggest that when one learns that as
a result of the conflict the out-group has suffered more than
the in-group, this might pose a threat to one’s in-group’s
moral image (as it implies that the in-group is a guilty, evil
perpetrator). In other words, learning that the out-group has
“outperformed” the in-group with regard to its conflict-
related suffering ironically constitutes an “upward compari-
son,” which is threatening in contexts of inter-group conflict.
The engagement in CV may thus reflect group members’
attempts to alleviate the threat posed to their social identity
due to this upward comparison.
Magnitude gap. Another phenomenon that is likely to con-
tribute to CV is the magnitude gap, reported in contexts of
interpersonal transgressions. This concept was proposed by
Baumeister (1996) to characterize the discrepancy between
victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of the same transgres-
sions in terms of severity and illegitimacy. Specifically, vic-
tims’ and perpetrators’ accounts were replete with
perspective-related biases that led them to construct system-
atically different narratives of the same incident (Baumeis-
ter, 1998; Kearns & Finchman, 2005). In other words,
perpetrators tended to underestimate whereas victims tended
to overestimate the severity and illegitimacy of the transgres-
sion. These divergent perceptions of victims and perpetrators
were observed even after controlling statistically for the
severity of the transgression (Kearns & Finchman, 2005).
Applying these processes to the group level, a similar mag-
nitude gap is likely when members of adversarial groups
account for their mutual transgressions throughout a conflict,
resulting in a considerable discrepancy between their collec-
tive narratives of the conflict (see “Collective-Level Mecha-
nisms” section below).
Biased individual memory. In a related vein, because
accounts of a transgression, like most other accounts, often
rely on actively construed memories, they are likely to be
influenced by goals and motives and fail to represent what
actually happened (Loftus, 1993; Loftus, 2003; Schacter,
1999). Consequently, individual memories of past transgres-
sions are construed in a self-serving manner that underesti-
mates one’s blame and overestimates and highlights one’s
righteousness and innocence (Kearns & Finchman, 2005).
Goals and motives similarly affect group members’ memo-
ries of events related to violent conflicts, such as the recol-
lection of the in-group’s aggressive acts (Sahdra & Ross,
2007) and the out-group’s apology for the wrongdoing (Phil-
pot & Hornsey, 2011; these memory biases are moderated by
the strength of in-group identification discussed later).
In summary, these mechanisms may underlie individual
group member’s tendencies to perceive their in-group as
having suffered more than the out-group. Furthermore, they
may also lay the foundation for the psychological

Noor et al. 355
mechanisms that form and maintain the desire to compete
over one’s victimhood status at the collective level. For
example, one way that collective memories of events are
formed is that group members actively talk and think about
them extensively (Pennebaker, Paez, & Rime, 1997).
Therefore, the biases that affect the memories of individual
group members are likely to influence the group’s collective
memory as well. We discuss collective memory and other
mechanisms that operate at the collective level and contrib-
ute to CV in the next section.
Collective-Level Mechanisms
Biases in memory and accounts of inter-group transgression
can also occur at the group level, which can contribute to the
collective motivation to engage in CV.
Biased collective memory. According to Halbwachs (1992),
memories of groups’ actions and historical events are often
founded and organized within a collective context, as society
provides the framework for beliefs and behaviors and our
recollections of them. Groups are likely to endorse and
remember those events that affected them most (Pennebaker
et al., 1997), including events in which the in-group was vic-
timized by another group. Such events may be mythologized
by groups and become their chosen traumas (Volkan, 2006).
The mental representation and the emotional significance of
a group’s chosen trauma becomes embedded in the group’s
identity, and it transmits the event’s symbolic meaning across
generations. Moreover, the memory of such collective trau-
mas may revive ancient animosities, fuel current conflicts,
and spark new ones, making the emotional issues (e.g., feel-
ings of humiliation and helplessness) become as important as
the “real” issues at stake (e.g., a dispute over specific terri-
tory; Volkan, 2001).
According to Volkan (2001), under the influence of their
chosen traumas, groups are less likely to display empathy for
their adversary’s sufferings (see also Chaitin & Steinberg,
2008), even when such sufferings amount to equal or greater
suffering than the in-group sufferings. In other words, they
act in line with the principle of egoism of victimization
(Mack, 1979). Such egotism may stem from victims’
increased sense of entitlement to behave in a less prosocial
manner (see Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010, who
revealed this phenomenon at the interpersonal level), which
may lead groups to embrace ideologies of entitlement
(Moses, 1990), such as exclusive claims of territory. In fact,
reminders of these chosen traumas may increase legitimiza-
tion of harming adversarial groups in the present. Indeed,
across various contexts of inter-group conflicts, reminders of
past collective victimhood have been shown to decrease
groups’ acceptance of collective responsibility and guilt for
inflicting harm on an out-group in a contemporary conflict
(Wohl & Branscombe, 2008).
In addition, when a new conflict develops, the mental rep-
resentation of the current adversary can become contaminated
with the image of the enemy from the chosen trauma. This
phenomenon is particularly pronounced when groups are per-
petually persecuted by other groups and might develop the
belief that old adversaries are embodied in contemporary ene-
mies (e.g., Jewish Israelis’ perceptions of Ahmadinejad as a
contemporary Hitler; Schori, Klar, & Roccas, 2009; Bar-Tal,
Chernyak-Hai, Schori, & Gundar, 2009). Thus, viewing vic-
timhood as the central feature of one’s collective identity is
likely to increase the tendency to compete for victimhood
against a multitude of out-groups.
Biased collective accounts of inter-group conflicts and trans-
gressions. Groups’ accounts of factual inter-group transgres-
sions can be distorted by aspects of their cultures that are
used to legitimize violence against one another, also referred
to as “cultural violence” (Galtung, 1990). Cultural violence
may be manifested through groups’ religion, ideology, arts,
language, and even empirical and formal science (Galtung,
1990). For example, the “doctrine of the just war” (Bellum
Iustum) is a cultural narrative according to which there are
certain conditions under which direct violence is justified; as
such, and as opposed to the doctrine of nonviolent resistance,
it can be viewed as a form of cultural violence (Christie, Tint,
Wagner, & DuNann Winter, 2008). The “doctrine of the just
war,” however, is rarely accepted as a justification for out-
group’s violence.
Another factor that can contribute to biases in collective
accounts of inter-group transgressions is that groups are
often exposed to war-promoting rather than peace-
promoting journalism (Lynch & McGoldrick, 2005). Specifi-
cally, war-promoting journalism establishes a zero-sum per-
ception of the conflict and prioritizes the reporting of the
here-and-now of the conflict over its root causes, its physical
over its psychological impact, the differences rather than the
similarities between the involved parties, and stalemates
over previous agreements and progress. Exposure to such
journalism may feed both groups’ perceptions that their
needs can be met only by the other side’s compromise or
defeat. It may also lead to valuing violent responses over
nonviolent alternatives to the conflict. Moreover, the “us-
them” journalism—that gives voice only to “us” views
“them” as the problem, dehumanizes “them,” is propaganda
rather than truth oriented, and focuses on “our” suffering and
“their” violence (see Lynch & Galtung, 2010, for a compre-
hensive review)—might further underpin the collective per-
ception of “us” as the exclusive victim and “them” as the
exclusive perpetrators.
In summary, the biases in groups’ collective memory as
well as in their accounts of mutual inter-group transgressions
may lay the foundation for groups’ engagement in CV. These
processes tend to predominate when groups are involved in
intractable conflicts, that is, conflicts that are violent, are
protracted (i.e., there is at least one generation that never
knew a different reality), are perceived as irresolvable, are
existential, are zero-sum in nature, demand extensive invest-
ment (e.g., militarily, economically), and occupy a central

356 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
place in the lives of the societies involved (Bar-Tal, 2007;
Kriesberg, 1998). Over time, groups involved in such con-
flicts develop a repertoire of societal emotions, beliefs, and
attitudes that afford them with strategies for coping with the
conflict. For example, to maintain their respective interpreta-
tion of the conflict, groups develop clashing ethos of the con-
flict (Bar-Tal, 2000) that supply the epistemic basis for their
societal consciousness. The endorsement of this ethos
encourages groups to embed their sense of victimhood as a
core component of their identity, which leads them to view
the out-group—and more generally the world—through a
victim perspective. It also encourages groups to delegitimize
the suffering and injustices caused to the out-group while
highlighting their own. Ultimately, all of the influences
described above can lead to perceptions of the out-group as
the guilty, violent perpetrator and the in-group as the inno-
cent, moral victim (Bar-Tal, 2000). This, again, lays the
foundation for CV.
Dimensions of Inter-Group CV
Groups may make their case for victimhood by engaging in
discourses that highlight the unique nature of their suffering.
These discourses may stress one or more of the following
dimensions, depending on the historical context and the
nature of the inter-group relationships.
The Physical Dimension of Suffering
Physical suffering results from groups engaging in deliber-
ate, direct violence (Galtung, 1969), such as the internment
regimen in Northern Ireland, mass killings in the former
Yugoslavia, suicide bombings in Israel, and the torture of
Iraqi prisoners. In contexts where direct violence is used by
both groups, groups may mutually accuse each other of
committing gross and intentional acts of harm.
To prove that their in-group has been subjected to more
physical victimization than the out-group, groups may sim-
ply quantify suffering and portray their in-group as having
endured a larger share of the overall suffering (Noor, Brown,
Gonzalez, et al., 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a,
2008b). Alternatively, groups may devalue the sufferings
experienced by the out-group and deplore their own group’s
sufferings regardless of the objective number and severity of
physical injuries and deaths in each group. Evidence for such
differential valuation of lives and suffering emerges from a
series of experiments in real inter-group contexts, which
show that the way in which people value lives (lost or saved)
is partly determined by ethnocentrism and inter-group com-
petition (Pratto & Glasford, 2008). Specifically, U.S. partici-
pants tended to value the lives of conationals more than those
of out-group members (Iraqis and Afghans) under conditions
of national competition. This tendency was observed even
when the in-group members were portrayed as war combat-
ants and the out-group members as civilians.
Moreover, even in contexts where one group has been
commonly acknowledged as responsible for more violence
than the other group, both groups may still engage in compe-
tition over physical suffering. For example, during the
Pinochet rule in Chile, the political Left was the target of
most of the physical violence inflicted by the military regime
and found backing from the political Right. Yet, the latter
group still often highlights its physical suffering caused by
leftist guerrilla attacks and assassinations (Roniger &
Sznajder, 1999; see similar trends after the Rwandan geno-
cide in Mamdani, 2002; Staub, 2003).
The Material Dimension of Suffering
Suffering in violent conflicts, particularly among groups
within the same society, is often inflicted indirectly through
discriminating societal structures and practices (Christie
et al., 2008; Galtung, 1969). In other words, beyond the direct
violence, there may be structural violence, resulting in inter-
group inequalities, such as housing, education, and employ-
ment. As proposed by the Realistic Inter-Group Conflict
Theory, groups often compete over material resources
(Brown, 2000; Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953).
Therefore, groups facing material disadvantages may be left
with the sore crown of defeat (i.e., of losing out materially to
the out-group), which in turn can fuel the conflict. To illus-
trate, although the Northern Irish conflict was triggered by a
number of factors, one cause was the discrimination experi-
enced by the Catholic community in terms of employment,
housing, education, and security prior to the start of the
conflict (Cairns & Darby, 1998).
Of course, as the Relative Deprivation Theory suggests
(Runciman, 1966; Walker & Smith, 2002), competition over
real resources can be driven by a subjective sense of depriva-
tion: Comparing themselves to other individuals or groups
may lead people to perceive relative discrepancies between
what they have and what they should be entitled to (e.g., de
la Sablonniere, Taylor, Perozzo, & Sadykova, 2009). At the
collective level, relative deprivation encompasses the belief
that the in-group has received unequal shares of the collec-
tive material goods or is unjustly deprived of resources (e.g.,
Zagefka & Brown, 2005). Groups are likely to believe that
the existing distribution of resources is the outcome of a cor-
rupt political system benefiting the out-group (Eidelson &
Eidelson, 2003).
Still, as is the case with the physical suffering, competi-
tion over the experience of material deprivation is not con-
fined to less powerful groups. Advantaged groups can also
experience suffering of a similar nature, especially when
faced with the threat of radical institutional reforms that
lead to significant material redistributions (e.g., land and/or
political power). The claim of material victimhood by the
political Right as the result of radical reforms by Allende’s
leftist government in Chile is one example (Perez de Arce,
2008).

Noor et al. 357
The Cultural Dimension of Suffering
Culture is commonly understood as a worldview that
informs individuals’ perceptions of social reality (Ross,
1997; Spiro, 1984; see also Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller,
2004). Conflicting groups may call attention to their sense of
cultural deprivation or threat of cultural extinction. Cultural
deprivation can entail the loss of language, unique practices
(e.g., religious or healing practices), or customs, or represent
simply a general threat to the in-group’s “way of life” that
expresses its cultural continuity, identity, norms, values, and
heritage (Gone, 2008; Hammack, 2008).
The impact of such a threat to one’s culture can be drastic.
For example, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
reported that his perception of the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an
attempt to destroy the Western way of life prompted him to
engage the United Kingdom in a war with Iraq (Blair, 2010).
The Terror Management Theory (TMT; Solomon, Greenberg,
& Pyszczynski, 2004) attempts to explain these severe reac-
tions to threats to one’s culture. It suggests that people’s cul-
tural worldview is a psychological defense mechanism that
buffers against the anxiety people feel when reminded of
their mortality. Research on TMT has shown that individuals
display prejudice and aggression toward out-groups when
they feel an increased need to safeguard their cultural world-
views from threats (Greenberg & Kosloff, 2008). Consistent
with TMT, Wohl and Branscombe (2010; Study 2) reported
that the perceived threat of cultural extinction posed by
English Canada to the French Canadians in Quebec pre-
dicted French Canadians’ collective angst (anxiety focused
on threat-related outcomes). In turn, a high level of angst led
to behaviors that strengthened the in-group (e.g., promoting
the French Canadian way of life). Other work has also shown
that a perceived attack or insensitivity toward ethno-cultural
groups’ worldviews (e.g., vandalism of sacred sites in India
or caricatures of Muslim figures in Europe) may trigger out-
rage among their members (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003; see
also Huntington, 1993; Ross, 1997).
Groups’ perceptions of cultural victimhood may be fur-
ther intensified by the fact that cultures constantly change
(Ross, 1997). The presence of steady change makes it diffi-
cult for the groups involved in a conflict to distinguish the
changes that take place as a direct consequence of out-group
oppression from those caused by societal and intergenera-
tional forces and dynamics.
The experience of suffering and oppression in the physi-
cal, material, and cultural realms may give rise to feelings of
psychological distress and injustice.
The Psychological Dimension of Suffering
The experience of victimization leaves behind psychological
distress and emotional pain (e.g., Bar-Tal & Salomon, 2006;
Barber, 2001; Gidron, Gal, & Zahavi, 1999; Muldoon,
Schmid, Downes, Kremer, & Trew, 2010). Distress and
emotional pain do not develop merely from actual physical,
material, or cultural harm but can also result from the threat
of harm (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). For example, the prac-
tices of surveillance and attempts by the government to
cultivate a widespread culture of spying among the citizens
of the former East German Democratic Republic show how
the mere threat of harm can lead to deleterious psychological
consequences, such as suspicion and generalized distrust
(Childs & Popplewell, 1996). Moreover, the impact of psy-
chological suffering is not limited to those who are directly
exposed to it but can also affect those who witness and
experience harmful events vicariously through transgenera-
tional stories and narratives (Hammack, 2008; Lickel et al.,
2006; Morrow, 2001). For example, Hayden (2003) claimed
that the “true Irish soul” has been shaped by the trauma of
the great famine of the 1840s.
The importance of the psychological dimension of CV
becomes particularly central when groups pay exclusive
attention to their own psychosocial suffering while minimiz-
ing the suffering experienced by the out-group (Vollhardt,
2009). Over time, focusing on the in-groups’ psychological
suffering can lead such suffering to become embedded in the
groups’ collective narratives and collective identities
(Hammack, 2008; Volkan, 2001).
The Legitimacy Dimension of Suffering
Groups may acknowledge each other’s suffering but still
compete over the legitimacy and injustice of their suffering
(Bar-Tal, 2000). That is, groups may claim not only to have
suffered but also that their suffering was decidedly more
unjust than that of the other group (Noor, Brown, & Prentice,
2008b). This dimension of CV may help to legitimize vio-
lence through the rationale of “We were left with no other
choice by the out-group but to respond with violence”
(Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a; see also Čehajić &
Brown, 2010; Mallett & Swim, 2007). For example, in a
study of the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, a
positive association was found between perceptions of inter-
group CV and each group’s attempt to portray their past in-
group violence as self-defense and claims that it was
provoked by the aggressive acts of the out-group (Noor,
Brown, & Prentice, 2008a).
Importantly, even when one party suffers more objective
physical or material loss than the other party, groups may
still argue over the legitimacy of their respective suffering
and whether one party brought it on itself. For instance,
Israel maintains that whereas the Israeli attacks are aimed at
military targets (such that the death of Palestinian civilians,
if caused, is a means to an end), the Hamas attacks are aimed
at civil targets (such that the death of Israeli civilians is an
end in itself) and are therefore more illegitimate (Israeli
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011). Thus, even when
Palestinians objectively suffer from more harm, Israelis may
still hold the view that their suffering is more unjust.

358 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
In summary, groups may suffer from physical, material,
cultural, and psychological damage, as well as from the expe-
rience of severe injustice. They can then highlight each of
these dimensions of suffering to be crowned the “true” victim
of the conflict. For example, within uneven inter-group power
relationships, the less powerful group may engage in CV with
respect to all dimensions, including the first one, which is
more objective in nature (e.g., one can count the exact num-
ber of deaths caused by an out-group attack) to show clearly
that they suffered more losses. Conversely, the more power-
ful group may highlight primarily the fifth dimension—injus-
tice of the suffering—which is more subjective and therefore
open to different interpretations. Future research should
examine whether groups indeed strategically emphasize dif-
ferent dimensions of their suffering and how this emphasis
contributes to their engagement in CV.
Psychological Functions of CV
It is perhaps paradoxical that groups compete over the vic-
tim’s role. Perceiving one’s in-group as a victim is often
associated with weakness, helplessness (Nadler, 2002;
Prilleltensky, 2008; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008), low agency
(Gray & Wegner, 2009), and humiliation (Lindner, 2006).
Thus, groups should be motivated to reject the victim’s iden-
tity. For example, during the first decades after World War
II, Israelis perceived the Holocaust as antithetical to the
identity of the “new Israeli,” who was active, free, and dar-
ing, and the Holocaust was therefore rejected rather than
endorsed as part of the Israeli identity (Nadler, 2001; Zertal,
2005; see also Klar, Schori-Eyal, & Klar, 2011). Furthermore,
members of a perpetrator group may not always respond
with compassion when learning about the violence that their
group inflicted on other groups. In fact, they may display
increased prejudice and a tendency to dehumanize the vic-
timized group (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). For exam-
ple, the perception of Jews’ ongoing suffering from past
atrocities was shown to result in increased anti-Semitism
(Imhoff & Banse, 2009). Finally, to relieve the discomfort
caused by exposure to victims’ suffering (Lerner, 1971),
noninvolved bystanders may blame the victims for bringing
their plight on themselves (see also Gray & Wegner, 2010).
Indeed, bystanders donated less and attributed more blame
to victim groups who were victimized by another group
(e.g., due to a civil war) compared with victim groups of
natural disasters because the former were perceived to have
brought the crisis on themselves (Zagefka, Noor, Brown,
Randsley de Moura, & Hopthrow, 2011).
In summary, being identified as the victims of another
group may carry stigma. Nevertheless, in the following sec-
tion, we suggest that in spite of the potential drawbacks asso-
ciated with the victim’s role, victimhood status can be viewed
as a valuable psychological resource that serves several posi-
tive functions for individual group members as well as for the
group as a collective. These functions include the following:
Increasing In-Group Cohesiveness
During inter-group conflicts, leaders need followers who
view themselves as a group that faces a severe injustice. Such
perceptions of a threatened “us” are facilitated when follow-
ers experience a sense of identification and a shared past and
future. Victimhood may serve as a means of bolstering in-
group cohesiveness (Ignatieff, 1993; Noor, Brown, &
Prentice, 2008a; Ramanathapillai, 2006; Stern, 1995; Wohl &
Branscombe, 2010). For example, narratives of past suffering
can sustain the close bond between current members of the
in-group and the older generation who lived through the
injustices. The narratives from this trusted source can induce
a sense of vicarious victimhood in younger group members
(Christie et al., 2008; Lickel et al., 2006). Thus, aside from
satisfying group members’ desires for acceptance, ideologi-
cal consensus, and self-worth (Correll & Park, 2005), the ties
between individuals due to their unique suffering offers them
protection from new injustices and increases in-group cohe-
siveness (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a; Ramanathapillai,
2006; Stern, 1995; Wohl & Branscombe, 2010).
Justifying In-Group Violence
Past victimhood has been associated with increased distrust
(Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003; see also Tam, Hewstone,
Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2009), negation of the out-group’s
raison d’être (Kelman, 2008), and various inter-group emo-
tions. These emotions include, on one hand, humiliation
(Lindner, 2006) and fear (Skitka, Bauman, Aramovich, &
Morgan, 2006), which are often associated with defensive-
ness (Skitka et al., 2006) or even passivity (Ginges & Atran,
2008). On the other hand, there are action-oriented emotions
(Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000) such as collective angst
(Wohl & Branscombe, 2010), collective anger, and rage
(Pennekamp, Doosje, Zebel, & Fisher, 2007; Rice &
Benson, 2005; Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2007;
see also Rydell et al., 2008) that are generally associated
with confrontational responses (e.g., Skitka et al., 2006).
These confrontational tendencies, in turn, might encourage
the acceptance of in-group violence as a means to resolve
the conflict.
Indeed, groups involved in violent conflicts often believe
that their grievances can be addressed only through physical
force. However, before violence can take place, moral justi-
fication for such violence is required (Bandura, 1999). This
may be achieved by invoking an exaggerated sense of in-
group vulnerability (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003), which is
facilitated through the evocation of action-oriented collec-
tive emotions such as anger among group members (Leach,
Iyer & Pederson, 2007; Smith, Cronin, & Kessler, 2008).
Once again, assuming the victim’s role provides groups with
a useful tool for inflating the scale of the threat that the out-
group may represent. Thus, in the presence of heightened
and possibly chronic threat, calls for preemptive violent

Noor et al. 359
actions against the out-group may become more easily
justified.
The events leading to the Rwandan genocide and the mas-
sacres in the former Yugoslavia illustrate this scenario.
Reminders of past ill-treatment, sometimes dating as far
back as precolonial times or the period of the Ottoman
Empire, were used to instill in-group members with a sense
of threat and the imminence of renewed out-group attacks to
justify and garner support for preemptive and retaliatory vio-
lent strategies (Ignatieff, 1993; Keane, 1996; Mamdani,
2002; Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008b).
Denying Responsibility, Avoiding Negative
Group Emotions, and Seeking Compensation
As groups emerge from violent conflict and resume nonvio-
lent ways of resolving their disagreements, they may view
victimhood as a psychological resource that can be used to
deflect responsibility for the use of violence during the con-
flict (Wohl & Branscombe, 2008). That is, portraying the
in-group’s historical suffering as greater than the out-group’s
could be used as evidence that the in-group was left with no
choice but to resort to violence as a means of self-defense
(Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a; see also Čehajić &
Brown, 2010).
Accepting collective responsibility for past wrongdoings
is associated with collective guilt and empathy for the out-
group members’ suffering. In turn, these emotions predict
compensatory policies to make amends (e.g., reparations,
affirmative action; Branscombe, Slugoksi, & Kappen, 2004;
Iyer, Leach, & Crosby, 2003). In contrast, perceiving their
victimhood as more severe than the other group’s may lead
groups to display an unwillingness to accept in-group
responsibility and eschew empathy for the out-group
(Čehajić, Brown, & Gonzalez, 2009). In fact, group mem-
bers sometimes go to great lengths to avoid collective guilt.
For example, they may exhibit defensive temporal distanc-
ing in the face of past in-group atrocities. To illustrate,
Germans (but not Canadians) judged the Holocaust to be
more subjectively remote in time when they read about
German-perpetrated atrocities. Greater subjective distance,
in turn, predicted lower collective guilt and less willingness
to make amends (Peetz, Gunn, & Wilson, 2010). Group
members may also shift their standards of justice (through
requiring more evidence before accepting in-group wrongs)
to view the harm inflicted by their in-group as less severe
(Miron, Branscombe, & Biernat, 2010). Shifting the focus of
suffering onto one’s own group through CV could be
employed to reduce the intensity of unpleasant collective
emotions and to counter threats to the unity of the group
(Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003; Ignatieff, 1993; Peetz et al.,
2010; Rosland, 2009).
Moreover, CV could also serve group members in the
postconflict phase as a way of minimizing out-group claims
and maximizing in-group claims for compensation (Gonzalez,
Manzi, & Noor, 2011; Manzi & Gonzalez, 2007; see also
Miron et al., 2010; Peetz et al., 2010). This strategy may be
especially effective when groups manage to convey that the
impact of their suffering has continued into the present post-
conflict era. Starzyk and Ross’ (2008) findings revealed that,
relative to other historical victim groups, groups with contin-
ued suffering were offered more sympathy, and the injustices
they experienced were judged as more intense, which in turn
increased support for their compensation.
Recruiting Moral and Material Support From
Third Parties
As important as it is to manage the conflict itself, it is
equally essential for groups to maintain their positive image
in the eyes of third parties who are not directly involved in
the conflict. Material and moral support from groups located
outside the immediate conflict is of huge importance. For
example, third-party interventions increase the likelihood
that the supported group will win the conflict militarily
(Balch-Lindsay, Enterline, & Joyce, 2008). Group leaders
may believe that they are more likely to be helped by and
receive empathy from other groups to the extent that they are
considered to be innocent and not responsible for their own
plight. Research suggests that such intuitions are valid, both
at the interpersonal and inter-group levels (Friedman &
Austin, 1978; Zagefka et al., 2011). Thus, groups may
engage in CV to appear innocent and deserving of empathy,
alliance, and moral and practical support from third-party
groups (Simon & Klandermans, 2001).
Summary
Although being victimized is a negative experience with
many harmful consequences, being recognized as a victim
can be a valuable psychological commodity that may serve
several psychological functions. We suggest that due to
groups’ tendency to compete over valuable resources, they
are likely to compete over the symbolic resource of being
recognized as a victim as well. Future research should exam-
ine whether the various functions of being recognized as
victims varies across the different phases of the conflict (i.e.,
outset, violent phase, and postconflict phase; Christie et al.,
2008; Kelman, 2008; Lederach, 1995). For example, seeking
compensation may be of a particular importance in the after-
math of the violence (i.e., the postconflict phase) whereas
justifying in-group’s violence may be particularly important
during the violent phase.
It should be acknowledged that various processes dis-
cussed so far have been described as deriving from groups’
engagement in CV (e.g., the belief that victimhood may jus-
tify the in-group’s violence toward the out-group).
Nevertheless, these processes, in turn, may increase groups’
engagement in CV (e.g., If the in-group’s violence toward
the out-group is justified, the perception of victimhood is

360 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
enhanced). Although social psychology tends to emphasize
models of unidirectional cause-and-effect (Rusbult &
Agnew, 2010), such cyclical patterns of bidirectional causal-
ity (see Figure 1) are characteristics of ongoing processes
(Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999) such as pro-
longed inter-group conflict.
Psychological Motivations Underlying Inter-
Group CV
So far, our discussion has focused on aspects of CV that are
common to all groups, regardless of their relative power and
status. For example, irrespective of the relative power of the
conflicting groups and their perceived victimhood status by
other noninvolved parties, groups may make efforts to gar-
ner support from third parties. However, consistent with the
Needs-Based Model (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008; Shnabel &
Nadler, 2008; Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi,
2009), we suggest that engaging in CV may also reflect
groups’ experience of threats to different dimensions of their
identities, resulting in different psychological motivations.
In other words, although both more and less powerful
groups engage in similar behaviors designed to maximize
perceptions of their own group’s suffering relative to the
out-group, different motivations may underlie these efforts.
Specifically, the Needs-Based Model identifies a set of
distinct motivations for victims and perpetrators. Victims
experience a loss of relative power, control, and autonomy,
as well as a sense of competence and respect, and therefore
are motivated to restore their power and control. Perpetrators,
in contrast, experience a threat to their moral image, and thus
their belongingness to their “moral community” is in doubt
(Tavuchis, 1991). Consequently, they are motivated to
restore their moral image and enhance their social accep-
tance. Thus, victims and perpetrators may engage in CV as
an attempt to restore their dimensions of identity that have
been compromised by the conflict. However, whereas vic-
tims may use this as a form of empowerment, perpetrators
may engage in CV to achieve social acceptance.
We propose that acknowledgment of the in-group’s vic-
timization on the part of other members of the “moral com-
munity” can serve as a form of empowerment4 and social
acceptance and thus has critical implications for groups’
sense of power and moral image, simultaneously. Such
acknowledgment can be manifested, at the collective level,
by the international community’s recognition of the group’s
victimization or, at the individual level, through expressions
of empathy by out-group members who participate in an
inter-group dialogue (e.g., Bar-On & Kassem, 2004).
For victims in particular, seeking acknowledgment and
validation of their suffering may reflect their desire for power
because such an acknowledgment constitutes an admission of
responsibility and consequent moral debt, particularly when
coming from perpetrators (Minow, 1998). This admission
empowers the victims, who can then decide whether and how
this debt should be annulled or repaid. In contrast, denial of
their suffering by either perpetrators or by third parties leaves
their wish to restore their sense of power, agency, and control
unsatisfied. For example, acknowledging Jews’ sufferings
from persecution in Europe (e.g., by recognizing the
Holocaust) often serves as a rationale for justifying their aspi-
ration and right for self-determination—a form of empower-
ment. In contrast, the denial of this suffering (e.g., denial of
the Holocaust) often serves as an argument for undermining
this right and is therefore disempowering for Israeli Jews
(Shnabel & Dovidio, 2009).
For perpetrators, seeking acknowledgment of their suffer-
ing may reflect their enhanced desire for acceptance: If their
suffering is recognized, then there is room for expressions—
by both victims and third parties—of compassion for the per-
petrators’ distress, understanding of the circumstances that
compelled their actions, and sympathy for their emotional
hardship. Sympathy for and understanding of the perpetra-
tors’ perspective can mitigate the moral inferiority engen-
dered by the perpetrator role (Exline & Baumeister, 2000)
and provide reassurance that perpetrators belong to the moral
community from which they feel potentially excluded. For
example, teaching the Rwandan people about the roots of
violence that had lead the Hutus to commit the 1994 geno-
cide helped members of the Hutu group feel “re-humanized”
and eased their burden of shame and guilt (Staub, Pearlman,
Gubin, & Hagengimana, 2005).5
Victims’ and perpetrators’ motivations and their conse-
quent tendency to compete over their share of victimhood is
further intensified by the inherent “magnitude gap”
(Baumeister, 1996) in their perspectives on the same victim-
ization episode. As discussed earlier, this gap refers to vic-
tims’ tendency to perceive the injustice they experienced as
more severe and illegitimate than do the perpetrators, who
tend to underestimate the harm they caused and its immoral-
ity. Because of this gap, members of the victimized group
who become aware of their adversaries’ perspective on the
transgression may feel that their victimhood is not suffi-
ciently acknowledged and become even more motivated to
obtain such empowering acknowledgment. In contrast, when
members of the perpetrating group become aware of the vic-
tims’ perspective, they are likely to feel that the victims are
exaggerating the harm that the perpetrators caused, as well as
the extent to which these acts violate moral standards.
Consequently, perpetrators may be even more motivated to
stress their own victimhood to emphasize the fact that they
too are vulnerable human beings with whom others can iden-
tify and whose perspective can be understood. The goal of
such a strategy is to eliminate the threat to their morality due
to their social role as perpetrators.
For the sake of conceptual clarity, we have referred to vic-
tims and perpetrators as distinct social categories with clear-
cut boundaries, but this is rarely the case in contexts of CV.
Nevertheless, the above analysis is applicable to understand-
ing CV for two reasons. First, although both groups may

Noor et al. 361
perceive themselves as the “real” victims overall, they may
nevertheless see themselves as either victims or perpetrators
when referring to specific transgressions. For example, in the
context of Northern Ireland, Protestants may feel that they
are the perpetrators (i.e., experience an enhanced desire for
acceptance) when referring to Protestant Loyalist attacks and
victims (i.e., experience an enhanced desire for empower-
ment) when referring to the Irish Republican Army (IRA)
terror attacks, and vice versa for Catholics. Thus, group
members may engage in CV to lessen different threats to
their identities across different contexts and events.
Second, even when both parties inflict suffering on each
other, they may nevertheless have asymmetrical power rela-
tionships. In such contexts, the stronger party is likely to be
viewed as the perpetrator and the weaker party as the victim
(Nadler & Liviatan, 2006), although they may have engaged
in mutual victimization. In the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,
for example, the Israelis are stronger than the Palestinians
along several objective dimensions (economically, militarily,
etc.), and yet both sides have been victimized by each other
on many different occasions (e.g., terror attacks and counter-
attacks; Nadler & Shnabel, 2011).
In this context, Palestinians may be motivated to stress
their suffering to draw the Israelis’ and the world’s attention
to the injustice caused by the Israeli occupation. The Israelis
may, however, be motivated to stress their suffering at the
hands of the Palestinians to gain the Palestinians’ and world’s
understanding of the circumstances that compelled them to
engage in what might be otherwise interpreted as immoral
behavior. Empirical evidence supporting this possibility
stems from findings that, in the presence of basic trust,
Palestinians responded more positively to a message of apol-
ogy from an Israeli representative stressing Israel’s responsi-
bility for causing suffering (i.e., an empowering message;
Halabi & Nadler, 2009), whereas Israelis responded more
positively to a message from a Palestinian representative
expressing empathy toward their suffering (i.e., an accepting
message; Nadler & Liviatan, 2006).
In summary, group members may compete over their
share of victimhood to remove different kinds of threats to
their collective identities. Indeed, to the extent that adver-
sarial groups reciprocally exchange empowering and accept-
ing messages (e.g., through speeches delivered by the group
representatives), group members’ willingness to reconcile
with the out-group increases (Shnabel et al., 2009). However,
the ironic tragedy of CV is that although it reflects groups’
common desire for validation and acknowledgment of their
suffering by the out-group (although their underlying moti-
vation may be different), their competitive mind-set prevents
such reciprocal exchange as it obstructs expressions of gen-
erosity and understanding toward the out-group (Noor,
Brown, & Prentice, 2008a, 2008b). The absence of such
expressions reduces the probability of acknowledging the
out-group’s suffering and, consequently, the prospects for
healing fractured inter-group relationships (Noor, Brown,
Gonzalez, et al., 2008). Hence, CV can be conceived as a
prime factor that feeds the intractability of conflicts and
impedes reconciliation between rival groups. In the next sec-
tion, we discuss these negative consequences of CV for
inter-group forgiveness and reconciliation.
The Relationship Between Inter-
Group CV and Inter-Group
Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Kelman’s (2008) theorizing about the processes that foster
and hinder inter-group reconciliation suggests that each
group in an intractable conflict bases its collective identity
on the negation of the other group’s identity. This negation
typically involves challenging the validity of the other
group’s narrative and basic psychological needs (e.g., the
need for security) by questioning the truthfulness of the out-
group’s narrative and portraying the in-group’s needs as
more urgent than those of the out-group. When group mem-
bers are confronted (e.g., through exposure to media reports)
with the negation of their narrative and identity by their out-
group, they experience psychological distress (evident in
their self-reports as well as in ego depletion effects, such as
temporal decrease in IQ scores; Baram & Klar, 2011). This
hardship can lead to heightened motivation for CV and, in
turn, reduced prospects for fostering positive attitudes
toward inter-group forgiveness and reconciliation.
For instance, Maoz and Eidelson (2007) found in a repre-
sentative Israeli sample that victim beliefs regarding con-
cerns over Israeli safety and vulnerability predicted the
endorsement of policies in support of annexing land from the
Palestinians and transferring the population to neighboring
Arab countries. Conversely, victim beliefs on the Palestinian
side revealed that the motivation for suicide bombing mis-
sions is partially influenced by the bombers’ deep sense of
victimization, lack of effective nonviolent alternatives, and
feelings of oppression and humiliation (Berko & Erez, 2005;
Hafez, 2006; see also Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992; Bar-Tal et al.,
2009; Vollhardt, 2009; but see also Ginges & Atran, 2008 for
“inertia” effects following humiliation). Whereas this
research examined the effects of victim beliefs in general
(i.e., not necessarily in competitive contexts), other research
has directly examined the relationship between CV and for-
giveness (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, et al., 2008; Noor, Brown,
& Prentice, 2008a, 2008b):
Forgiveness—defined as decreased motivation to retali-
ate against or avoid the offender and increased motivation to
reconcile with the offender despite harmful acts (McCullough,
2008)—has recently become the focus of research that
explores ways of ameliorating hostile inter-group relation-
ships (Nadler & Liviatan, 2006; Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, et
al., 2008; Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a, 2008b; Staub,
2006; Tam et al., 2007; Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). This
research has linked forgiving an out-group for its past wrongs

362 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
with ending the cycle of inter-group revenge, preventing vic-
tims from becoming victimizers, and shifting the focus of
inter-group relationships from the painful past to a positive
future. Ultimately, forgiveness can be conceptualized as a
constructive strategy that provides rival groups with an
opportunity to restore their damaged relationship and recon-
cile (Minow, 1998; Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, et al., 2008;
Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008a, 2008b).
However, groups who compete over their share of victim-
hood are more motivated to establish their in-group’s suffer-
ing than to let go of the painful past (Noor, Brown, &
Prentice, 2008b), which decreases the likelihood of inter-
group forgiveness. Evidence from two different contexts of
inter-group conflict—Catholic and Protestant communities
in Northern Ireland and opponents and supporters of
Pinochet’s military rule in Chile—validate this negative rela-
tionship between CV and inter-group forgiveness attitudes.
Group members party to the conflict were given the opportu-
nity to compare the harm that they had endured as a result of
the conflict with that experienced by the out-group. Overall,
CV was a unique negative predictor of inter-group forgive-
ness (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, et al., 2008). The negative
relationship between CV and forgiveness attitudes was medi-
ated by the strength of in-group identification and trust
toward the out-group: The more the group members engaged
in competition over victimhood, the stronger they identified
with their in-groups and, in turn, the less willing they were to
forgive the out-group. In contrast, low CV was associated
with greater trust in the out-group’s intentions, which was in
turn positively correlated with forgiveness attitudes (Noor,
Brown, & Prentice, 2008a).
In addition to this correlational evidence, Noor, Gonzalez,
et al. (2010) carried out an experiment in which participants
belonging to the political Left in Chile (a social identity
associated with those who suffered the greatest human losses
as a result of the Pinochet regime; Roniger & Sznajder, 1999)
were randomly assigned to one of two experimental condi-
tions. In the CV condition, participants read a bogus quota-
tion, ostensibly reflecting a recent social survey, which
portrayed the political Right (i.e., the out-group) as the ulti-
mate victim group relative to the political Left (i.e., the in-
group). In the mutual victimhood condition, participants read
a bogus quotation that acknowledged that both the political
Left and Right groups had suffered (with no further compari-
son). Prior to receiving the manipulation, participants were
asked to complete a measure tapping their identification with
their in-group (the political Left). The results revealed that
the participants in the competitive condition, relative to those
in the mutual victimhood condition, tended to report less
willingness to forgive their historical out-group. Importantly,
a significant interaction effect between strength of political
identification and the experimental manipulation of CV was
observed. Participants who identified less with the political
Left were not affected by the experimental manipulation in
terms of their willingness to forgive the out-group.
In contrast, participants who strongly identified with the
political Left reported less willingness to forgive the out-
group in the CV compared with the mutual victimhood con-
dition. In other words, the engagement in CV among those
with a strong attachment to the political Left seemed to have
more negative consequences for inter-group relationships.
Taken together, both the correlational and experimental
findings point to the negative impact of CV on positive inter-
group attitudes and crucially on the forgiveness attitudes
essential to reconciliation processes.
Overcoming Inter-Group CV
In this section, we consider two routes toward overcoming
CV, which are schematically presented in Figure 2.
Removing Threats to the In-Group’s Identity
The first route is based on the principles of the Needs-Based
Model. As discussed earlier, beyond pointing to the nature of
the threats to the identities of adversarial groups, the model
suggests that addressing their motivations through a recipro-
cal exchange of empowerment and acceptance may improve
inter-group relationships. In the context of Jewish–German
relationships, when Jews (i.e., members of a victimized
group) received an empowering message from a German
representative (i.e., a representative of the perpetrating
group), and when Germans received an accepting message
from a Jewish representative, their willingness to reconcile
increased. An identical pattern of findings was observed
among Jews and Arabs when relating to the context of the
1956 Kefar Kassem killings, in which Arab civilians were
victimized by Jews (Shnabel et al., 2009). These findings
encouragingly pointed to the malleable nature of identity
threats and thus raise the possibility that removing such
identity threats through reciprocal exchanges of messages
may reduce adversaries’ tendencies to engage in CV and
thereby facilitate reconciliation.
Sonnenschein’s (2008) ethnographic analysis of a series
of structured encounters between Israeli Jews and Israeli
Palestinians (i.e., a dialogue group intervention) provides
initial support for this proposed process. Sonnenschein found
that Jews and Palestinians often engaged in CV, with each
group trying to prove that the threat posed to the in-group
was particularly existential and severe. When this happened,
communication was impeded, and the groups stopped listen-
ing to the other. However, unlike Helman’s (2002) and
Bekerman’s (2002) analyses, which concluded that inter-
group dialogues of this kind eventually reach a dead end,
Sonnenschein (2008) found that the groups did find their
way toward potential reconciliation. This happened when the
Jews recognized, rather than denied, the injustice to the
Palestinians and the Palestinians expressed an understanding
of the Jews’ perspective and empathized with their experi-
ence of existential threat instead of merely reproaching them.

Noor et al. 363
These expressions of recognition of injustice on one hand
and empathy and understanding on the other allowed the
groups to let go of the “exclusive victim” role and paved the
way to a more constructive dialogue.
Whereas Sonnenschein’s analysis focused on encounters
between individual group members, exchanges of empower-
ing and accepting messages can also take place in the collec-
tive public sphere as well. For example, such exchange
processes govern Truth and Reconciliation Commissions,
where perpetrators admit and express remorse for their
wrongs, and victims, in turn, may grant them forgiveness
(see Gobodo-Madikizela, 2008; Shnabel, Nadler, Canetti-
Nisim, & Ullrich, 2008). Another illustration of a gesture
expressed in the collective sphere can be seen in the initia-
tive of an Israeli–Palestinian clergyman Emil Shufani, who
was awarded the 2003 UNESCO Prize for Peace Education.
Perhaps partially because of the fear that it might over-
shadow the Palestinian suffering due to the Naqba, in recent
decades there is a growing voice in the Arab discourse that
denies the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust (Litvak &
Webman, 2009). Tackling such denials, in 2002, Shufani
launched a project that involved a joint Jewish–Arab pil-
grimage to the Auschwitz concentration camp to demon-
strate brotherhood and understanding of the Jews’ historical
wounds. Despite the mixed, sometimes cynical responses
evoked by this initiative among both Jews and Arabs, we
believe that gestures of this kind may help the involved par-
ties transcend the competition of “who suffered more.”
Future research should experimentally examine whether
reciprocal exchange of empowerment and acceptance can
promote reconciliation through the reduction of the motiva-
tion for CV. For example, studies could examine whether
learning about Shufani’s pilgrimage project would make it
easier for Jewish Israelis to acknowledge Palestinian suffer-
ing. Such research is important as it may point to a way to
disentangle the Gordian knot that is characteristic of the
dynamics between parties involved in seemingly intractable
conflicts.
Recategorization Into Common Victimhood
Identity
The second potential route to overcoming CV is based on
the logic of the CIIM (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner,
Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). CIIM is
grounded on the social categorization approach. This
approach defines inter-group relationships in terms of the
social categories that are used to represent groups (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). It suggests that
the higher the level of inclusiveness between two social
categories, the more similarities will be perceived between
them (Turner & Onorato, 1999). The CIIM further suggests
that encouraging members of conflicting groups to think
about themselves as members of a common superordinate
group, for example, to recategorize themselves as Americans
instead of as Blacks and Whites, can reduce negative atti-
tudes and biases toward out-group members.
Although an abundance of research has established the
validity of the CIIM in contexts of societal group disparities
(see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), few studies have tested the
influence of recategorization on victimized groups’ forgive-
ness and reconciliation attitudes toward perpetrator groups
(Gonzalez, Manzi, & Noor, 2011; Noor, Brown, Taggart,
Fernandez, & Coen, 2010; Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, et al.,
ADDRESSING EMOTIONAL
MOTIVATIONS:
-Empowering the less powerful/victimized
group (e.g., avoiding the denial of
injustice)
-Accepting the more powerful/perpetrating
group (e.g., expressing empathy for the
circumstances that compelled their
behavior)
FOSTERING COMMON VICTIMHOOD IDENTITY:
- Knowledge and exchange of intense, common
suffering experiences (e.g., loss of a family
member due to the conflict)
-Maintaining dual identity (unique in-group as well
as common victimhood identity)
-Separating responsibility from common suffering
issues
-Drawing attention to costs of the conflict
-Highlighting common legacy of historical mistakes
and violence
-Abstract/de-contextualized framing of the conflict
-Increasing perceived similarity between groups
-Peace promoting journalism
- Intergroup contact
DECREASED
COMPETITIVE
VICTIMHOOD
INCREASED WILLINGESS TO FORGIVE AND
RECONCILE WITH THE OUTGROUP
Figure 2. Strategies for overcoming CV

364 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
2008; Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). These studies have dem-
onstrated that identification with superordinate categories
can increase victim groups’ readiness to forgive their histori-
cal perpetrators. For example, when Jewish participants
were led to think about themselves and the Germans as com-
mon members of humanity, or when supporters of the politi-
cally opposing groups in Chile were led to think about
themselves as common members of the Chilean nation, their
willingness to forgive the out-group increased. Thus, recate-
gorizing separate group identities into a common, superordi-
nate identity can serve as an effective strategy for promoting
inter-group forgiveness and reconciliation.
Building on these findings, we propose that a similar pro-
cess of recategorization, whereby conflicting groups main-
tain their experience of unique victimhood but simultaneously
extend their focus onto their common, shared victimhood,
may serve as a strategy to reduce CV. Such recategorization
may occur when victims who had suffered a major life-trans-
forming experience (e.g., loss of loved one in war, undergo-
ing torture) realize that others in the adversarial group had
been similarly victimized. When this realization of shared
victimhood is psychologically significant, by listening to the
other’s story, victims from both groups are united by their
intense and common victimization experience. The cross-
group solidarity between victims is a fertile ground for the
development of a psychologically relevant identity of com-
mon victimhood that may attenuate the divisive forces of
CV. Such recategorization is epitomized powerfully through
the work of one of the reconciliation-oriented organizations
in the Middle East—the Palestinian–Israeli Bereaved
Families for Peace. This organization consists of people who
had lost close family members as a result of the regional con-
flict. They have taken their victimhood as a basis of a com-
mon new identity that unites them both in their quest for
reconciliation between the two peoples. Whereas the propo-
sition that fostering common victimhood can be used to
reduce CV might seem tautological at first glance, closer
scrutiny reveals that this is not the case once common and
CV are conceptualized as ongoing processes rather than as
discrete outcomes. Thus, whereas earlier we discussed the
mechanisms that influence the process leading to CV, in the
following section, we turn to identify the underlying mecha-
nisms that guide the process of common victimhood, sug-
gesting that setting it in motion may eventually hinder the
opposing process that encourages CV.
Although conflicting groups often differ vehemently in
their ideologies, goals, and narratives about the conflict and
its causes (Hammack, 2008), they might find it difficult to
disagree with each other that a violent conflict has a negative
impact on the lives of both groups (due to lack of security,
poor quality of life, unstable economy, etc.), albeit in possi-
bly different ways. Such detrimental, common effects of the
conflict can be framed as a shared social category of com-
mon victimhood. For example, by separating the issues
related to responsibility for the conflict from issues relating
to the common suffering, conflicting parties may be more
willing to broaden their exclusive perspectives on their in-
group victimhood to one that centers on the victimization
experiences of both groups. In addition, focusing on com-
mon victimhood may draw the parties’ attention to the costs
of the conflict and foster the recognition that these costs are
higher than those involved in its termination (e.g., giving up
land), which is a key element in resolving the conflict
(Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2009). Hence, it can be hypothesized
that reminders of common victimhood will reduce groups’
efforts to compete over their in-group suffering and foster
inter-group forgiveness and reconciliation attitudes.
Noor, Gonzalez, Musa, and Carrasco (2010) provided
initial support for this suggestion in their experimental
research conducted in Chile. In this work, members of the
political Left were exposed to quotations intended to induce
either CV by statements that their out-group had suffered
more than their in-group or a sense of mutual, shared victim-
hood by statements that both the in-group and out-group had
suffered. Consistent with the researchers’ predictions, par-
ticipants who identified strongly with their group and were
in the shared victimhood condition were more forgiving of
the out-group than participants with strong in-group identifi-
cation who were in the CV condition.
This strategy is also in line with the recent revision of
the CIIM (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009), which
emphasizes the importance of dual identity, that is, identifi-
cation with the immediate subgroup as well as with the
superordinate, common identity. The recategorization strat-
egy of highlighting common victimhood could serve as a
useful superordinate category by encouraging groups to
broaden their narrow focus on their own victimhood and
become mindful that the impact of the conflict is more per-
vasive. The proposed recategorization strategy, however,
does not eliminate perceived differences over unique types
of in-group suffering. In fact, consistent with the dual-iden-
tity approach, a degree of identification with and recogni-
tion of one’s own in-group victims may be necessary to
identify with the superordinate category of common victims
(Dovidio et al., 2009).
Nevertheless, how should the perception of shared vic-
timhood best be fostered when groups are motivated to dis-
miss each other’s suffering? One strategy suggested by
Vollhardt (2009) involves promoting a more inclusive con-
strual of victimhood through abstract/decontexualized fram-
ing of the conflict, increasing perceived similarity between
in-group victims and other unrelated or out-group victims,
and endorsing a common in-group identity that includes the
out-group. This strategy resembles in several respects (e.g.,
in its broadening of group members’ historical perspective)
Staub’s (2006, 2008) intervention in Rwanda, which aimed
(among several other goals) to develop a shared understand-
ing of the historical and causal factors of the conflict between
Hutus and Tutsis. Realizing that both groups were victims of
a legacy of historical mistakes and violence had a positive

Noor et al. 365
effect on healing and reconciliation between these groups.
Similar to Kelman’s Interactive Problem Solving workshops
(see Kelman, 2008), Staub’s intervention focused on top-
down processes and was thus carried out through workshops
with national and community leaders.
However, constructing a shared view of history could also
be advanced using bottom-up processes. For example, the
PRIME (Peace Research Institute in the Middle East) dual-
narrative history project developed by Adwan and Bar-On
(2004) focused on high school history teachers and their
pupils. Admittedly, the Jewish and Palestinian teachers failed
to reach a single agreed-on historical narrative (Adwan &
Bar-On, 2004). Nevertheless, based on the positive outcomes
of the project (e.g., in terms of increasing students’ tolerant
attitudes), becoming better acquainted with the historical
narrative of the out-group in itself (i.e., even without endors-
ing it) may assist in establishing a sense of common
victimhood.
Potential Obstacles
These strategies for overcoming inter-group CV face a num-
ber of obstacles. One major obstacle to the strategy of recip-
rocal removal of identity threats is that, as in any interaction
based on the exchange of materialistic or symbolic resources
(Poundstone, 1992), mutual exchange of empowerment and
acceptance involves some risk-taking behavior. For exam-
ple, if a group admits its responsibility for victimizing the
other group (e.g., through a public apology), how does it
know that the other group will reciprocate by accepting the
apology and granting forgiveness? This leads to the conclu-
sion that prior to any social exchange interactions, a climate
of trust should be established. This conclusion is consistent
with Nadler and Shnabel’s (2008) suggestion that “instru-
mental reconciliation” (i.e., trust building through joint
pursuit of common instrumental goals such as a cleaner
environment) should precede “socio-emotional reconcilia-
tion” (i.e., addressing the adversary’s needs through the use
of the apology–forgiveness cycle). In the absence of a basic
level of trust, the parties are unlikely to take the risk
involved in satisfying the other party’s concerns because
they fear that their gesture will not be reciprocated (e.g.,
Leunissen, De Cremer, & Reinders Folmer, in press).
The second strategy concerning the development of a
shared identity of victimhood may also encounter a number
of obstacles. Specifically, some groups, particularly if they
are a threatened minority, may resist embracing a shared
superordinate category due to fears of having to abandon
their group identity and its values (Crisp, Stone, & Hall,
2006; Fischer, Greitemeyer, Omay, & Frey, 2007; Hornsey
& Hogg, 2000; Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008). Furthermore,
according to the In-Group Projection Model (IPM; Waldzus
& Mummendey, 2004; Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus,
2007), groups, particularly those enjoying the majority sta-
tus, typically view the characteristics of the superordinate
category as representing their own in-group values and qual-
ities. Such a projection might reduce the positive effects of
identification with the superordinate category on out-group
bias (Kessler & Mummendey, 2001; Waldzus & Mummendey,
2004). In line with this reasoning, Noor , Brown, Taggart et al.
(2010) found obstacles of this nature among the Protestants
and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Although both groups
unanimously agreed that the category “Northern Irish” was
the most inclusive social category in the region and both
groups displayed a moderate to strong identification with it,
only the Catholic group’s out-group forgiveness attitude (the
historically minority/disadvantaged group) benefited from
such identification with Northern Ireland. As for the
Protestant group, the lack of influence of the superordinate
category on their out-group forgiveness attitude was
explained by their perceptions of the superordinate category
and their own immediate subgroup category (i.e., Protestant
community) as nearly identical.
A third obstacle to promoting a shared identity is that
dehumanization of the out-group (i.e., stripping the out-
group of human qualities) may have already become a com-
mon practice (Bandura, 1999; Bar-Tal, 2007; Gaunt, 2009).
In such cases rehumanization (a term suggested by Staub et
al., 2005) of the adversary might be necessary before any of
the strategies can be implemented.
Seeking answers from social psychology, at the micro
level, fostering inter-group contact may help. Although
Allport’s (1954) classical “contact hypothesis” has several
drawbacks and limitations (for a critical discussion, see
Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005), accumulated evidence
suggests that direct or extended contact encourages groups to
learn about each other, develop positive inter-group emo-
tions, and engage in future prosocial interactions (Brown &
Hewstone, 2005). Similarly, over the course of planned inter-
group contacts, an important aspect of the exchanged knowl-
edge may reveal the mutual suffering experienced by both
groups, which in turn may help groups empathize with each
other and identify with the common victimhood category.
The identification with this category could be assisted by
maintaining a degree of in-group distinctiveness, which
could be achieved by maintaining the salience of the original
subgroup identity categories within the common victimhood
category (Crisp et al., 2006; Dovidio et al., 2009; Dovidio,
Gaertner, & Saguy, 2007; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).
At the macro level, media reports of conflict that aim to
de-escalate tension between the conflicting groups may be a
crucial factor. The de-escalation approach (Kempf, 2002,
2003) challenges the use of violence by both sides of the
conflict; takes into account the interests, goals, and psycho-
logical needs of both parties; and approaches the history of
the conflict from a critical perspective. These characteristics
are consistent with the notion of common victimhood as a
nonexclusive view of suffering that highlights the impact of
the conflict on both sides and avoids dehumanization of the
other.

366 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
Moderators
Earlier, we reported and discussed findings that highlighted
the negative consequences of engagement in CV for high
in-group identifiers’ prosocial attitudes toward the out-group
(see the section on the “Relationship Between Inter-Group
CV and Inter-Group Forgiveness and Reconciliation”).
Below, we review research that highlights how the strength
of in-group identification can moderate individual group
member’s motivation to compete over their group’s victim-
hood status. In addition, we also consider “type of conflict”
as a collective-level moderator.
Individual-level moderator: Strength of in-group identifications.
As discussed earlier, group members’ level of identification
with their in-group was empirically found to moderate many
of the processes that underlie the motivation to engage in
CV. Thus, the stronger their in-group identification, the more
likely individual group members will tend to engage in CV.
In a study that examined the impact of strength of in-
group identification on a group’s tendency to dispute their
own unjust actions against another group, Miron and col-
leagues’ (2010) work showed that people who identified
strongly with the in-group required more evidence to judge
their group’s actions as harmful and felt less collective guilt
than people who identified less strongly. High identifiers’
strategic shift of their justice standards when evaluating their
in-group actions may have stemmed from their tendency to
perceive their group as the innocent victim of the conflict.
High identification with one’s in-group was also associated
with an ethnocentric valuing of the lives of one’s conationals
over those of foreign nationals when groups were in compe-
tition over positive outcomes (Pratto & Glasford, 2008).
Again, under competitive conditions, high identifiers who
value their in-group members’ lives more than those of the
out-group members’ would be expected to be more willing to
dismiss the suffering of the out-group while highlighting the
suffering of their in-group. Strength of in-group identifica-
tion was also found to moderate group members’ memory
with regard to a conflict. For example, in the context of
Hindu–Sikh inter-group relationships, group members with a
high degree of religious identification recalled fewer inci-
dents of past in-group violence than did those with a low
degree of religious identification (Sahdra & Ross, 2007).
High identifiers were also less likely to remember that the
out-group apologized for its wrongdoing (Philpot & Hornsey,
2011). Again, the biased memories of those who identify
strongly with their group is likely to lead them to engage
more in CV.
Finally, group members who were highly identified with
their in-group also displayed increased bias toward the out-
group following a process of recategorization into a superor-
dinate category that did not sufficiently incorporate the
distinct subgroup identity categories (Crisp et al., 2006;
Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Thus, due to threat of loss of dis-
tinctiveness of subgroup identities, strength of in-group
identification may interfere with the effectiveness of a poten-
tial strategy for reducing CV, namely, developing a sense of
shared victimhood among the adversarial groups that does
not sufficiently acknowledge the different nature of the
groups’ sufferings.
Collective-level moderator: Type of conflict. As already noted,
CV can stem from various motivational and cognitive pro-
cesses (e.g., memory biases or the motivation to justify the
in-group’s acts) that take place to varying degrees across
most contexts of inter-group conflict. The degree of CV,
however, may be determined by the severity of the conflict.
In conflicts that involve direct violence, rather than struc-
tural violence, CV is likely to be more pronounced in the
mainstream societal ethos. This is not to argue that CV is
absent in conflicts that revolve around structural injustices.
For example, some members of advantaged groups in struc-
tural violence contexts may also strive for their share of vic-
timhood (e.g., claims of material deprivation among
nonindigenous Australians; Leach, Iyer, & Pederson, 2007;
and claims among White U.S. college students that Affirma-
tive Action Policies are a form of reverse discrimination;
Thomsen et al., 2010; see also Sykes, 1993).
Rather, our theoretical argument is that because structural
violence is often manifested in subtle, implicit, and even
benevolent forms (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Jackman,
1994) and is therefore harder to pinpoint, direct violence
offers more easily identifiable victimization episodes.
Consequently, CV is likely to be more intense in contexts
involving direct violence. Specifically, societies involved in
violent, intractable conflicts develop a social-psychological
infrastructure that consists of mutually interrelated collective
memories, an ethos of conflict, and a collective emotional
orientation that help them to cope with the challenges posed
by their harsh conditions (Bar-Tal, 2007). This repertoire of
emotions, beliefs, and attitudes motivates the parties to dele-
gitimize the suffering caused to their out-group while high-
lighting their own (Bar-Tal, 2000). As mentioned above, the
result of this process is that each group perceives itself as the
innocent, moral victim and the out-group as the guilty, vio-
lent perpetrator, which sets the stage for CV.
Future Research Directions
In the section, “Overcoming Inter-Group CV,” we outlined
two strategies to reduce CV. Future research should empiri-
cally examine the effectiveness of these theoretical strate-
gies and their ability to promote inter-group forgiveness and
reconciliation in practice.
Another line of research should examine CV in contexts
other than violent inter-group conflicts. The first context is
competition between nonadversarial victim groups. Groups
who were victimized by the same or different perpetrator
groups may engage in several forms of CV. Members of a
certain victim group may strive to establish that their
group’s current suffering exceeds, or at least compares

Noor et al. 367
with, the suffering of their group in a different historical
period (e.g., Jensen, 2002). Alternatively, members of dif-
ferent victim groups may compete over which group has
suffered more either at the hands of the same historical per-
petrator, or across different historical and geographical
contexts. For example, because the Holocaust has been
commonly declared unique among human atrocities
(Rothberg, 2009), other victim groups sometimes highlight
their sufferings by comparing it with the Jewish experi-
ence. For instance, Iris Chang, the Chinese-American
author of a book about the Nanking massacre, called this
1937 killing spree by the Japanese army in China “the for-
gotten Holocaust” and expressed her discontent that the
Chinese victims have not received the same recognition as
the Jews (Buruma, 2002).
It would be interesting and informative to compare the
psychological dynamics involved in these contexts with the
contexts discussed in the present article. For example, some
of the reasons for engaging in CV—such as drawing atten-
tion to the in-group’s suffering and receiving acknowledg-
ment (e.g., Melendy, 2005) or compensation (e.g., Woolford
& Wolejszo, 2006) for it, or encouraging collective action
among in-group members (e.g., Jensen, 2002)—might be
similar in both contexts. Nevertheless, other motivations to
engage in CV may be unique to each of these contexts. For
example, the motive to justify in-group violence may take
place in contexts of CV among adversarial groups, whereas
the concern that directing resources to another victim group
may come at the in-group’s expense (e.g., Brennan, 2008)
may be found in contexts of CV among nonadversarial vic-
tim groups.
A second context of CV worth exploring in future research
involves competition over victimhood following interper-
sonal transgressions. Arguably, group processes are some-
times fundamentally different from processes operating at
the interpersonal level. For example, evidence on the inter-
individual/inter-group discontinuity effect suggests that rela-
tionships between groups are more competitive and less
cooperative than relationships between individuals (Insko,
Kirchner, Pinter, Efaw, & Wildschut, 2005). Nevertheless,
competition over the role of the “true” victim seems to be
present in interpersonal transgressions as well. For instance,
victimhood is highly relevant to individual self-esteem,
especially if self-esteem is conceptualized as a sociometer
that monitors the likelihood of the individual being accepted
versus rejected by others (Leary & Downs, 1995). Because
acts of aggression and moral violations result in social exclu-
sion and rejection by others and thus lower the rejected indi-
vidual’s self-esteem (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs,
1995), individuals may be motivated to compare the scale of
their suffering resulting from interpersonal conflicts in a
self-serving and competitive manner. Testing this hypothesis
would assist clinicians and counselors in understanding the
psychological impact of CV on individuals’ well-being and
on their interpersonal relationships.
Conclusion
The social-psychological processes related to victimhood
within inter-group conflicts are relatively understudied. In
the present article, we focused on the interaction between
groups involved in violent conflicts and introduced the con-
cept of inter-group CV. We identified the factors, both at the
individual and collective levels, that give rise to groups’
motivations to claim the exclusive victim’s role as well as the
different dimensions of victimhood over which groups com-
pete. The intra- and inter-group functions of this competition
and their contribution to the conflict were highlighted. We
pointed out the motives that may underlie groups’ involve-
ment in CV and reviewed research revealing the negative
consequences of CV for inter-group forgiveness and recon-
ciliation. We then suggested that removing the threats to
group identities through the exchange of empowering and
accepting messages or gestures and highlighting their com-
mon victimhood (i.e., as a form of recategorization) may
constitute constructive strategies for reducing groups’
engagement in CV. We concluded by discussing individual-
group-member-level and collective-level moderators of CV
and identified important directions for future research. Given
that violent conflicts are common around the world and lead
to immense suffering and millions of deaths (Smith, 2004),
the aim of this article was to offer insights into some of the
psychological processes that underlie such tragedies so that
they can be prevented and overcome.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
first author was awarded a grant from the UK’s British Academy
(SG52414) to assist him with developing the concept of CV. The
third and the first authors also received financial support to write
this paper from the Yaffo Academic College in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Notes
1. We acknowledge that group processes can sometimes be funda-
mentally different from processes operating at the interpersonal
level. Thus, to alert the reader to exercise caution, throughout
the article, we specifically indicate wherever we cite insights
from the literature on interpersonal victimhood.
2. Note that at the time of writing this article only two journal arti-
cles and a book chapter, authored by Noor, Brown, Gonzalez,
et al. (2008), directly addressed the concept of competitive vic-
timhood (CV) in terms of theoretical development and empiri-
cal measurement. However, throughout the present article, we
will refer to a large body of empirical work within social psy-
chology and related disciplines that support our understanding

368 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
of CV but that have not directly used CV as defined and mea-
sured by Noor Brown, Gonzalez, et al. (2008).
3. An in-group refers to a collective with whom individuals iden-
tify on the basis of a social category (e.g., political ideology,
religion, ethnicity, etc.). In-group identification occurs in com-
parison to a relevant out-group from which the in-group distin-
guishes itself (e.g., Brown, 2000).
4. Note, however, that somewhat contrary to our theoretical claim,
Maercker and Mehr (2006) found that victims of crimes reacted
in a predominantly negative way to media reports of their vic-
timization. We acknowledge the importance of this research.
However, when considering these findings, one must also bear
in mind that a report of a harmful event should be distinguished
from a genuine statement of acknowledgment. We argue that in
contexts of CV, groups witness the denial of their suffering by
their perpetrators. It is possible that under such conditions, the
recognition of one’s suffering may convey a positive psycho-
logical response as suggested by the Needs-Based Model.
5. Understanding the roots of evil rehumanized the Tutsi as well, but
in a different manner, such as by making them realize that they
“were not outside history and human experience, and the geno-
cide in Rwanda was not God’s punishment” (Staub, 2008, p. 16).
References
Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2004). Shared history project: A PRIME
example of peace-building under fire. International Journal
of Politics, Culture and Society, 17, 513-525. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20007694
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Balch-Lindsay, D., Enterline, A. J., & Joyce, K. A. (2008). Third-
party intervention and the civil war process. Journal of Peace
Research, 45, 345-363. doi:10.1177/0022343308088815
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of
inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
193-209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
Baram, H., & Klar, Y. (2011). History as told by the other is a tax-
ing experience. Unpublished manuscript.
Barber, B. (2001). Political violence, social integration, and youth
functioning: Palestinian youth from the Intifada. Journal of
Community Psychology, 29, 259-280. doi:10.1002/jcop.1017
Bar-On, D., & Kassem, F. (2004). Storytelling as a way to work
through intractable conflicts: The German–Jewish experience and
its relevance to the Palestinian–Israeli context. Journal of Social
Issues, 60, 289-306. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00112.x
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict reso-
lution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psy-
chology, 21, 351-365. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00192
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intracta-
ble conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430-1453.
doi:10.1177/0002764207302462
Bar-Tal, D., & Antebi, D. (1992). Beliefs about negative intentions
of the world: A study of the Israeli siege mentality. Political
Psychology, 13, 633-645. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/3791494
Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A. (2009).
A sense of perceived collective victimhood in intractable con-
flicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 91, 229-258.
doi:10.1017/S181638310999022
Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2009). Overcoming psychological
barriers to peace making: The influence of mediating beliefs
about losses. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
motives, emotions and behaviour (pp. 431-438). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Salomon, G. (2006). Israeli–Jewish narratives of
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Evolution, contents, functions,
and consequences. In R. Rothberg (Ed.), Israeli and Palestin-
ian narratives of conflict: History’s double helix (pp. 19-46).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty.
New York, NY: Henry Hold.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 554-594).
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Bekerman, Z. (2002). The discourse of nation and culture: Its impact
on Palestinian–Jewish encounters in Israel. International Jour-
nal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 409-427. doi:10.1016/S0147-
1767(02)00014-7
Berko, A., & Erez, E. (2005). “Ordinary people” and “death
workers”: Palestinian suicide bombers as victimizers and vic-
tims. Violence and Victims, 20, 603-623. doi:10.1891/0886-
6708.20.6.603
Blair, T. (2010). Iraq Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.iraqin-
quiry.org.uk/media/45139/20100129-blair-final.pdf
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position.
Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7. Retrieved from http://www
.jstor.org/stable/1388607
Branscombe, N. R., Slugoksi, B., & Kappen, D. M. (2004). The
measurement of collective guilt. In N. R. Branscombe & B.
Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp.
16-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brennan, D. (2008). Competing claims of victimhood? For-
eign and domestic victims of trafficking in the United States.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5, 45-61. doi:10.1525/
srsp.2008.5.4.45
Brewer, M., & Brown, R. (1998). Inter-group relations. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 554-594). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1961). The mirror image in Soviet-American
relations: A social psychological report. Journal of Social
Issues, 17, 45-56. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1961.tb01682.x
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between
groups. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of inter-
group contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (pp. 255-343). London, England: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Buruma, I. (2002). Competing for victimhood. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2002/
jan/29/features11.g22

Noor et al. 369
Cairns, E., & Darby, J. (1998). The conflict in Northern Ireland.
American Psychologist, 53, 754-760. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.53.7.754
Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, S. (2006). Not quite human: Infra-
humanization in response to collective responsibility for inter-
group killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90, 804-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804
Čehajić, S., & Brown, R. (2010). Silencing the past: Effects of
inter-group contact on acknowledgment of in-group responsi-
bility. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1, 190-196.
doi:10.1177/1948550609359088
Čehajić, S., Brown, R., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). What do I care? Per-
ceived in-group responsibility and dehumanization as predictors
of empathy felt for the victim group. Group Processes Inter-
group Relations, 12, 715-729. doi:10.1177/1368430209347727
Chaitin, J., & Steinberg, S. (2008). “You should know better”:
Expressions of empathy and disregard among victims of mas-
sive social trauma. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 17, 197-226. doi:10.1080/10926770802344851
Childs, D., & Popplewell, R. (1996). The Stasi. The East German
intelligence and security service. New York, NY: New York
University Press.
Christie, D. J., Tint, B. S., Wagner, R. V., & DuNann Winter, D.
(2008). Peace psychology for a peaceful world. American Psy-
chologist, 63, 543-552. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.540
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the in-group as a social
resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9,
341-359. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_4
Crisp, R. J., Stone, C. H., & Hall, N. R. (2006). Re-categorization
and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats
from common in-groups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 230-243. doi:10.1177/0146167205280908
de la Sablonniere, R., Taylor, D. M., Perozzo, C., & Sadykova, N.
(2009). Reconceptualising relative deprivation in the context of
dramatic social change: The challenge confronting the people
of Kyrgyzstan. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
325-345. doi:10.1002/ejsp.519
des Forges, A. (1999). Leave none to tell the story: Genocide in
Rwanda. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
Dixon, J. A., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond optimal
contact: “A reality check” for the contact hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 697-711. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
36, pp. 1-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/
S0065-2601(04)36001-6
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of
“we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common
in-group identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18,
296-330. doi:10.1080/10463280701726132
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonal-
ity and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social
change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20.
doi:10.1177/1088868308326751
Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas: Five
beliefs that propel groups towards conflict. American Psycholo-
gist, 58, 182-192. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.3.182
Exline, J. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and
repentance: Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. L.
Paragament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research,
and practice (pp. 133-155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E.
(2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social
and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 7, 337-348. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 17-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Omay, S. I., & Frey, D. (2007). Merg-
ers and group status: The impact of high, low and equal group
status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger,
experienced controllability, group identity and group cohe-
sion. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17,
203-217. doi:10.1002/casp.874
Friedman, J. S., & Austin, W. (1978). Observers’ reactions to an
innocent victim: Effect of character logical information and
degree of suffering. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 4, 569-574. doi:10.1177/014616727800400415
Gaertner, S., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing inter-group bias:
The Common In-Group Identity Model. Hove, England: Psy-
chology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., &
Rust, M. C. (1993). The Common In-Group Identity Model:
Re-categorisation and the reduction of inter-group bias. Euro-
pean Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of
Peace Research, 3, 176-191. doi:10.1177/002234336900600301
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research,
27, 291-305. doi:10.1177/0022343390027003005
Gaunt, R. (2009). Superordinate categorisation as a moderator of
mutual infra-humanisation. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12, 731-746. doi:10.1177/1368430209343297
Gidron, Y., Gal, R., & Zahavi, S. (1999). Bus commuters’ cop-
ing strategies and anxiety from terrorism: An example of the
Israeli experience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 185-192.
doi:10.1023/A:1024762819880
Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2008). Humiliation and the inertia effect:
Implications for understanding violence and compromise in
intractable inter-group conflicts. Journal of Cognition and Cul-
ture, 8, 281-294. doi:10.1163/156853708X358182
Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2008). Transforming trauma in the after-
math of gross human rights abuses: Making public spaces
intimate through the South African truth and reconciliation
commission. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.),
Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation (pp. 57-76).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gone, J. P. (2008). “So I can be a Whiteman”: The cultural psychol-
ogy of space and place in American Indian mental health. Culture
& Psychology, 14, 369-399. doi:10.1177/1354067X08092639

370 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Noor, M. (2011). Inter-group forgive-
ness and reparation in Chile: The role of identity and inter-
group emotion. In L. R. Tropp & R. Mallett (Eds.), Beyond
prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive inter-group relations
(pp. 221-240). Washington, DC: Psychology Press.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent
perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520. doi:10.1037/
a0013748
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Torture and judgments of guilt.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 233-235.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.003
Greenberg, J., & Kosloff, S. (2008). Terror Management The-
ory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping,
inter-group conflict and political attitudes. Social and Per-
sonality Psychology Compass, 2, 1881-1894. doi:10.1111/
j.1751-9004.2008.00144.x
Guimond, S. (Ed.). (2006). Social comparison and social psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hafez, M. (2006). Rationality, culture, and structure in the mak-
ing of suicide bombers: A preliminary theoretical synthesis and
illustrative case study. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29, 165-
185. doi:10.1080/10576100500496964
Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2009).Overcoming the negative conse-
quences of inter-group helping: The role of trust and apology.
Unpublished manuscript.
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology
of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12,
222-247. doi:10.1177/1088868308316892
Hayden, T. (2003). Irish on the inside: In search of the soul of Irish
America. London, England: Verso.
Helman, S. (2002). Monologic results of dialogue: Jewish–Pal-
estinian encounter groups as sites of essentialisation. Iden-
tities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 9, 327-357.
doi:10.1080/10702890213971
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Inter-group bias.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604. Retrieved from
http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F/HewstoneRu-
binWillis.pdf
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diver-
sity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156. doi:10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0402_03
Huntington, S. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs.
22-49. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti-
cles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations
Ignatieff, M. (1993). Blood and belonging: Journeys into the new
nationalism. London, England: BBC Books.
Imhoff, R., & Banse, R. (2009). Ongoing victim suffering increases
prejudice: The case of secondary antisemitism. Psychological
Science, 20, 1443-1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02457.x
Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., Pinter, B., Efaw, J., & Wildschut, T.
(2005). Inter-individual-intergroup discontinuity as a function
of trust and categorisation: The paradox of expected coop-
eration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
365-385. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.365
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008). Hamas exploitation of
civilians as human shields. Retrieved from http://www.mfa
.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/
Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. (2003). White guilt and
racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117-129.
doi:10.1177/0146167202238377
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict
in gender, class and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Jensen, E. N. (2002). The pink triangle and political conscious-
ness: Gays, lesbians, and the memory of Nazi persecution.
Journal of the History of Sexuality, 11, 319-349. doi:10.1353/
sex.2002.0008
Keane, F. (1996). Letters to Daniel: Despatches from the heart
(BBC). London, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Kearns, J. N., & Finchman, D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator
accounts of interpersonal transgression: Self-serving or rela-
tionship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 321-333. doi:10.1177/0146167204271594
Kelman, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological
perspective. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.),
The social psychology of inter-group reconciliation (pp. 15-37).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kempf, W. (2002). Conflict coverage and conflict escalation. In W.
Kempf & H. Luostarinen (Eds.), Journalism and the new world
order (Vol. II): Studying war and the media (pp. 59-72.). Göte-
berg, Sweden: Nordicom.
Kempf, W. (2003). Constructive conflict coverage. A social psy-
chological research and development program. Conflict &
Communication Online, 2, 1-13. Retrieved from http://deposit.
ddb.de/ep/netpub/04/91/97/974979104/_data_dync/2003_2/
pdf_2003_2/kempf_engl.pdf
Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoat
around? Determinants of Inter-group conflicts at different cat-
egorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81, 1090-1102.
Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., & Klar, Y. (2011). The “Never Again”
state of Israel: The emergence of the holocaust as a core feature
of Israeli identity and its four incongruent voices. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Kriesberg, L. (1998). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to
resolution. New York, NY: Roman and Littlefield.
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pederson, A. (2007). Angry opposition to
government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceive
themselves as relatively deprived. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 46, 191-204. doi:10.1348/014466606X99360
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the
self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In
M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency and self-esteem (pp. 123-144).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Noor et al. 371
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
518-530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Building peace: Sustainable reconcilia-
tion in divided societies. Tokyo, Japan: The United Nations
University.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology
and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689-714.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141927
Lerner, M. J. (1971). Observer’s evaluation of a victim: Justice,
guilt, and veridical perception. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 20, 17-35. doi:10.1037/h0031702
Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., & Reinders Folmer, C. P. (2012).
The importance of being forgiven in perpetrators choice to apol-
ogize. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 215-222. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.004.
Lickel, B., Miller, N., Stenstrom, D. M., Denson, T. F., & Schamder,
T. (2006).Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame
in inter-group aggression. Personality Social Psychological
Review, 10, 273-390. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_6
Lindner, E. (2006). Making enemies. Humiliation and international
conflict. London, England: Praeger Security International.
Litvak, M., & Webman, E. (2009). From empathy to denial: Arabic
responses to the Holocaust. London, England: Hurst Publishers
Company.
Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American
Psychologist, 48, 518-537. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.518
Loftus, E. F. (2003). Make-believe memories. American Psycholo-
gist, 867-873. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.867
Lynch, J., & Galtung, J. (2010). Reporting conflict: New direc-
tions in peace journalism. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland Press.
Lynch, J., & McGoldrick, A. (2005). Peace journalism. Gloucester-
shire, England: Hawthorn Press.
MacDonald, D. B. (2002). Balkan holocausts: Serbian and Croatian
victim centered propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia. Man-
chester, England: Manchester University Press.
Mack, J. E. (1979). Foreword. In V. D. Volkan (Ed.), Cyprus: War
and adaptation: A psychoanalytic history of two ethnic groups
in conflict (pp. ix-xxi). Charlottesville, VA: University of Vir-
ginia Press.
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Inter-group emo-
tions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an inter-group
context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602-
616. doi:10.10371/0022-3514.79.4.602
Maercker, A., & Mehr, A. (2006). What if victims read a newspaper
report about their victimization? European Psychologist, 11,
137-142. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.137
Mallett, R. K., & Swim, J. K. (2007). The influence of inequality,
responsibility and justifiability on reports of group-based guilt
for in-group privilege. Group Process & Inter-Group Relations,
10, 57-69. doi:10.1177/1368430207071341
Mamdani, M. (2002). When victims become killers: Colonialism,
nativism and genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Manzi, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2007). Forgiveness and reparation in
Chile: The role of cognitive and emotional intergroup anteced-
ents. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13,
71-91. doi:10.1080/10781910709336769
Maoz, I., & Eidelson, R. J. (2007). Psychological bases for extreme
policy preferences. How the personal beliefs of Israeli Jews
predict their support for population transfer in the Israeli–Pales-
tinian conflict. American Behavioural Scientist, 50, 1476-1497.
doi:10.1177/0002764207302465
McCullough, M. E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the
forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Melendy, B. (2005). Expellees on strike: Competing victimization
discourses and the Dachau refugee camp protest movement,
1948-1949. German Studies Review, 28, 107-127.Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038071
Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing
history after genocide and mass violence. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Miron, M. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Biernat, M. (2010). Motivated
shifting of justice standards. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 36, 768-779. doi:10.1177/0146167210370031
Morrow, D. (2001). Forgiveness and reconciliation response. In
B. Hamber, D. Kulle, & R. Wilson (Eds.), Future policies for the
past (pp. 15-30). Belfast, Northern Ireland: Democratic Dialogue.
Moses, R. (1990). Shame and entitlement. In V. D. Volkan, D. A.
Julius, & J. V. Montville (Eds.) The psychodynamics of interna-
tional relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 145-160). Lanham, MD: Lex-
ington Books.
Muldoon, O., Schmid, K., Downes, C., Kremer, J., & Trew, K.
(2010). The legacy of the troubles: Experiences of the troubles,
mental health and social attitudes. Retrieved from www.lega-
cyofthetroubles.qub.ac.uk
Mussweiler, T., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2002). I know you are but
what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging in-group
and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 82, 19-32. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.19
Nadler, A. (2001). The victim and the psychologist: Changing per-
ceptions of Israeli holocaust survivors by the mental health
community in the past fifty years. History of Psychology, 4,
25-55. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.4.2.159
Nadler, A. (2002). Social-psychological analysis of reconciliation:
Instrumental and socio-emotional routes to reconciliation. In
G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education worldwide:
The concept, underlying principles, the research (pp. 127-143).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Inter-group reconciliation: Effects
of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and
recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32, 459-470. doi:10.1177/0146167205276431
Nadler, A., & Saguy, T. (2003). Reconciliation between nations:
Overcoming emotional deterrents to ending conflicts between

372 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
groups. In H. Langholtz & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The psychology
of diplomacy (pp. 29-46). Connecticut, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Instrumental and socio-emo-
tional inter-group reconciliation: The Needs Based Model of
reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Maloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.),
Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation. (pp. 37-56).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2011). Promoting inter-group reconcili-
ation in conflicts of structural and direct violence: Implications
of the Needs Based Model. In L. R. Tropp & R. Malett (Eds.),
Beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive inter-group
relations (pp. 201-220). Washington, DC: Psychology Press.
Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A.
(2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps
groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with
each other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
819-832. doi:10.1177/0146167208315555
Noor, M., Brown, R., & Prentice, G. (2008a). Precursors and
mediators of inter-group reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A
new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481-495.
doi:10.1348/014466607X238751
Noor, M., Brown, R., & Prentice, G. (2008b). Prospects for inter-
group reconciliation: Social psychological predictors of inter-
group forgiveness and reparation in Northern Ireland and Chile.
In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology
of inter-group reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful
co-existence—Going beyond victimization, guilt and distrust
(pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Noor, M., Brown, R., Taggert, L., Fernandez, A., & Coen, S. (2010).
Inter-group identity perceptions and their implications for inter-
group forgiveness: The Common In-Group Identity Model and
its efficacy in the field. Irish Journal of Psychology, 31, 151-171.
Retrieved from http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/id/eprint/8339
Noor, M., Gonzalez, R., Musa, R., & Carrasco, D. (2010).The psy-
chology of inter-group victimhood: Competitive victimhood
and its impact on inter-group forgiveness attitudes. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Ohad, D., & Bar-Tal, D. (2009). A sociological conception of col-
lective identity: The case of national identity as an example.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 354-379.
doi:10.1177/1088868309344412
Peetz, J., Gunn, G. R., & Wilson, A. E. (2010). Crimes of the past:
Defensive temporal distancing in the face of past in-group
wrongdoing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
598-611. doi:10.1177/0146167210364850
Pennebaker, J., Paez, D., & Rime, B. (1997). Collective memory of
political events. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Zebel, S., & Fisher, A. (2007). The
past and the pending: The antecedents and consequences of
group-based anger in historically and currently disadvantaged
groups. Group Processes & Inter-Group Relations, 10, 41-55.
doi:10.1177/1368430207071339
Perez de Arce, H. (2008). Y ahora.el verdadero Allende. Retrieved from
http://www.cren.cl/script/index.php?option=com_content&;
view=article&id=249:y-ahora-el-verdadero-allende&catid=
16&Itemid=39
Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2011). Collective memory for
apology and its relationship with forgiveness. European Jour-
nal of Social Psychology, 41, 96-106. Retrieved from http://
www.psy.uq.edu.au/research/publications.html?pid=132
Poundstone, W. (1992). Prisoner’s dilemma: John von Neumann,
game theory and the puzzle of the bomb. New York, NY: Dou-
bleday.
Pratto, F., & Glasford, D. E. (2008). Ethnocentrism and the value of
a human life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,
1411-1428. doi:10.1037/a0012636
Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppres-
sion and liberation: The promise of psycho political validity.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 116-136. doi:10.1002/
jcop.20225
Ramanathapillai, R. (2006). The politicising of trauma: A case
study of Sri Lanka. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psy-
chology, 12, 1-18. doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1201_1
Rice, C., & Benson, J. (2005). Hungering for revenge: The Irish
famine, the troubles and shame-rage cycles and the role
in group therapy in Northern Ireland. Group Analysis, 38,
219-235. doi:10.1177/0533316405052380
Roniger, L., & Sznajder, M. (1999). The legacy of human-rights
violations in the southern cone. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Rosland, S. (2009). Victimhood, identity and agency in the early
phase of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Identities, 16, 294-320.
doi:10.1080/10702890902861297
Ross, M. H. (1997). The relevance of culture for the study of politi-
cal psychology and ethnic conflict. Political Psychology, 18,
299-326. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00059
Rothberg, M. (2009). Multidirectional memory. Stanford, CA:
Standford University Press.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice:
A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century.
England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rusbult, C. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2010). Prosocial motivation and
behavior in close relationships. In M. Mikulincer & P. R.
Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions and behavior (pp.
327-345.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M.,
Ryan, M. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Arousal, processing
and risk taking: Consequences of inter-group anger. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1141-1152.
doi:10.1177/0146167208319694
Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond con-
tact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432-445.
doi:10.1177/0146167207311200
Sahdra, B., & Ross, M. (2007). Group identification and histori-
cal memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
384-395. doi:10.1177/0146167206296103

Noor et al. 373
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from
psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psycholo-
gist, 54, 182-203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182
Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Wieselquist, J., Pemberton, M., Witcher,
B., Kozar, R., . . . Wildschut, T. (2001). When groups are more
competitive than individuals: The domain of the discontinu-
ity effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
632-644. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.632
Schori, N., Klar, J., & Roccas, S. (2009). In every generation they
rise up against us: Perpetual in-group victimhood orientation
(PIVO) and behaviour in a current inter-group conflict. Paper
presented at the 32nd ISPP Annual Scientific Meeting, Dublin:
Ireland.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of
inter-group conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension.
New York, NY: Harper.
Shnabel, N., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). Mixed emotional needs of
Israeli-Jews as a potential source of ambivalence in their
response to the Iranian challenge. Paper presented at the YIISA
(Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semi-
tism): Psychological notion of the threat of contemporary geno-
cidal Anti-Semitism conference, New Haven, CT.
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of rec-
onciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of
victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116-132.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008).
The role of acceptance and empowerment from the perspective
of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2,
159-186. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2008.00014.x
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi,
D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfac-
tion of the emotional needs of victimised and perpetrating
group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021-1030.
doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicised collective iden-
tity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist,
56, 319-331. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P., & Morgan, S.
(2006). Confrontational and preventative policy responses
to terrorism: Anger wants a fight and fear wants “them” to
go away. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 375-384.
Retrieved from http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/Confront.pdf
Smith, D. (2004). Trends and causes of armed conflict. Retrieved
from http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publica-
tions/smith_handbook.pdf
Smith, H., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear and sad-
ness: Faculty members’ emotional reactions to collective pay
disadvantage. Political Psychology, 29, 221-246. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9221.2008.00624.x
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). The cul-
tural animal: Twenty years of Terror Management Theory and
research. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.),
Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp.13-34).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Sonnenschein, N. (2008). An identity challenging dialogue. Haifa,
Israel: Pardes Publishing House.
Spiro, M. E. (1984). Some reflections on cultural determinism and
relativism with special reference to emotion and reason. In R.
A. Schweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on
mind, self and emotion (pp. 323-346). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Starzyk, K., & Ross, M. (2008). A tarnished silver lining: Victim suf-
fering and support for reparations. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 34, 366-380. doi:10.1177/0146167207311280
Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring
and peace and the fulfillment of basic human needs. Political
Psychology, 24, 1-21. Retrieved from http://psihologija.ffzg.
unizg.hr/uploads/Ua/Ju/UaJus0tr6AjlHr6FBnwlsQ/Cultures-
of-Violence-Cultures-of-Peace_Staub.pdf
Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing or
intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psy-
chological recovery and the steps toward a general theory.
Political Psychology, 27, 867-894. Retrieved from http://www
.jstor.org/stable/20447006
Staub, E. (2008). Promoting reconciliation after genocide and mass
killing in Rwanda and other post-conflict settings. In A. Nadler,
T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of inter-
group reconciliation (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005).
Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of vio-
lence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its
experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social & Clini-
cal Psychology, 24, 297-335. doi:10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617
Stern, P. C. (1995). Why do people sacrifice for their nations? Polit-
ical Psychology, 16, 217-235. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/3791830
Sykes, C. J. (1993). A nation of victims: The decay of the American
character. New York, NY: Martin’s Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-
group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social
psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psy-
chology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Ken-
worthy, J. (2007). The impact of inter-group emotions on for-
giveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes & Inter-Group
Relations, 10, 119-136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2009). Inter-
group trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 35, 45-59. doi:10.1177/0146167208325004

374 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(4)
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa. A sociology of apology and recon-
ciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation model of social behaviour.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
ogy (Vol. 21, pp. 181-222). London, England: Academic Press.
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., Ho, A. K., Levin, S., van Laar, C., Sin-
clair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Wolves in sheep’s clothing: SDO
asymmetrically predicts ethnic victimisation among White and
Latino students across three years. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 36, 225-238. doi:10.1177/0146167209348617
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,
M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categori-
sation theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1999). Social identity, personality
and the self-concept: A self-categorising perspective. In R. M.
Kramer (Ed.), The psychology of the social self: Applied social
research (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Volkan, V. (2001). Trans-generational transmissions and chosen
traumas: An aspect of large-group identity. Group Analysis, 34,
79-97. doi:10.1177/05333160122077730
Volkan, V. (2006). Killing in the name of identity: A study of bloody
conflicts. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2009). The role of victim beliefs in the Israeli–Palestinian
conflict: Risk or potential for peace? Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology, 15, 135-159. doi:10.1080/10781910802544373
Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Inclusion in a super ordi-
nate category, in-group prototypicality and attitudes towards
out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
466-477. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.003
Walker, I., & Smith, H. (Eds.). (2002). Relative deprivation:
Specification, development and integration. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Super ordinate
identities and inter-group conflict: The In-Group Projection
Model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331-372.
doi:10.1080/10463280701728302
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R.
(1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior and trust in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 77, 942-966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in
social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. (2005). Forgiveness and col-
lective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend
on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 88, 288-303. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.88.2.288
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. (2008). Remembering histori-
cal victimisation: Collective guilt for current in-group trans-
gression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
988-1006. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.988
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. (2010). Perceiving your
group’s future to be in jeopardy: Extinction threat induces
collective angst and the desire to strengthen the in-group.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 898-910.
doi:10.1177/0146167210372505
Woolford, A., & Wolejszo, S. (2006). Collecting on moral debts:
Reparations for the Holocaust and Porajmos. Law and Society
Review, 40, 871-901. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00284.x
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2005). Comparisons and perceived depri-
vation in ethnic minority settings. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 31, 467-482. doi:10.1177/0146167204271711
Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., Randsley de Moura, G., & Hop-
throw, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to
natural and man-made disasters. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 353-363. doi:10.1002/ejsp.781
Zertal, I. (2005). Israel’s Holocaust and the politics of nationhood.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Vic-
tim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98, 245-255. doi:10.1037/a0017168