The Shadows of the Past: Effects of Historical Group Trauma on Current Intergroup Conflicts

Abstract

We examined associations between two orientations based on historical group trauma, a form of enduring group victimhood (Perpetual Ingroup Victimhood Orientation [PIVO]) and the belief that one’s group might itself become a victimizer (Fear of Victimizing [FOV]), and attitudes, cognitions, and emotions related to intergroup conflicts. PIVO was positively and FOV was negatively related to aggressive attitudes and emotions toward the outgroup (Studies 1a-1c, Israeli–Palestinian conflict), and to the attribution of responsibility for a series of hostilities to the outgroup (Study 3, Israeli–Palestinian conflict). PIVO was negatively and FOV positively related to support for forgiveness and reconciliation (Study 2, Northern Ireland conflict). In Experimental Study 4, FOV predicted greater accuracy in remembering harm, regardless of victims’ group identity, whereas PIVO was associated with reduced accuracy only when victims were Palestinians (outgroup members). Taken together, these findings indicate that both orientations have a significant impact on intergroup conflicts and their resolution.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216689063
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin
1 –17
© 2017 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0146167216689063
journals.sagepub.com/home/pspb
Article
Can the same group trauma inspire diverse orientations,
including lessons, narratives, and moral obligations?
Different group members can derive very different lessons
from the very same historical group trauma. More than 60
years ago, Gordon Allport (1954/1979) suggested that a vic-
timized individual
. . . will take one of two paths. Either he will join the pecking
order and treat others in the way he has been treated, or else he
will consciously and deliberately avoid this temptation. With
insight he will say, “These people are victims exactly as I am a
victim. Better stand with them, not against them.” (p. 155)
Similarly, the same group trauma can inspire different
worldviews in members of the victimized group (e.g., Klar,
2016). The main mindset that has been studied is group vic-
timhood (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008; Schori-Eyal,
Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2014; Vollhardt, 2009; Vollhardt &
Bilali, 2015). The group victimhood mindset has been asso-
ciated with an increased sense of vulnerability and mistrust
(Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003), fear of physical or symbolic
annihilation (Montville, 1990; Wohl & Branscombe, 2009),
and a perception of the world as an actively hostile place
(Bar-Tal, 1998, 2007; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Staub &
Pearlman, 2001). In the context of intergroup conflicts, a
sense of group victimhood has been related to conflict-
enhancing attitudes beliefs and emotions such as reduced
group-based guilt (Wohl & Branscombe, 2008), reduced
willingness for intergroup forgiveness (Noor et al., 2008),
and reduced willingness for compromise and greater support
for military actions against the outgroup (Schori-Eyal et al.,
2014).
In the present research, we conceptualized the victimhood
mindset as perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation (PIVO),
defined as the belief that one’s group is a constant victim
persecuted continually by different enemies. PIVO shares
some characteristics with competitive victimhood (Noor
et al., 2008) and with the notion of siege mentality (Bar-Tal
& Antebi, 1992), but places particular emphasis on the con-
nection between past and present enemies. Thus, PIVO may
689063PSPXXX10.1177/0146167216689063Personality and Social Psychology BulletinSchori-Eyal et al.
research-article2017
1Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel
2Tel Aviv University, Israel
3The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana
4Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
5Queen’s University, Belfast, United Kingdom
Corresponding Author:
Noa Schori-Eyal, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, P.O. Box 167,
Israel.
Email: noa.schori@gmail.com
The Shadows of the Past: Effects of
Historical Group Trauma on Current
Intergroup Conflicts
Noa Schori-Eyal1,2, Yechiel Klar2, Sonia Roccas3,
and Andrew McNeill4
Abstract
We examined associations between two orientations based on historical group trauma, a form of enduring group victimhood
(Perpetual Ingroup Victimhood Orientation [PIVO]) and the belief that one’s group might itself become a victimizer (Fear of
Victimizing [FOV]), and attitudes, cognitions, and emotions related to intergroup conflicts. PIVO was positively and FOV was
negatively related to aggressive attitudes and emotions toward the outgroup (Studies 1a-1c, Israeli–Palestinian conflict), and
to the attribution of responsibility for a series of hostilities to the outgroup (Study 3, Israeli–Palestinian conflict). PIVO was
negatively and FOV positively related to support for forgiveness and reconciliation (Study 2, Northern Ireland conflict). In
Experimental Study 4, FOV predicted greater accuracy in remembering harm, regardless of victims’ group identity, whereas
PIVO was associated with reduced accuracy only when victims were Palestinians (outgroup members). Taken together, these
findings indicate that both orientations have a significant impact on intergroup conflicts and their resolution.
Keywords
victimhood, intergroup conflict, aggression, memory, guilt
Received 19 October 2015; revised manuscript accepted 20 December 2016

2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
explain how temporally distant traumas can resonate in the
descendants of the victims many generations later (Barkan,
2000; Licata & Klein, 2010; Volkan, 1997; Wohl &
Branscombe, 2005).
So far little empirical attention has been paid to the pos-
sibility of additional mindsets that may evolve in the wake of
traumatic events endured by the group (cf. inclusive victim-
hood, Vollhardt, 2009). We suggest that historical group
trauma may also lead to fear of victimizing (FOV): the appre-
hension that the ingroup will become entangled in a “victim-
to-victimizer” cycle, ruthlessly harming enemies with little
regard for moral considerations. FOV reflects the belief that
suffering does not necessarily ennoble the mind. Rather, it
can induce moral callousness and indifference to the anguish
of others.
FOV is similar to PIVO in placing focus on historical
group trauma and its possible consequences. Similar to
PIVO, it deals with concerns regarding the possible negative
future of the ingroup. However, the content of the concern is
different. Whereas PIVO expresses the worry that the histori-
cally victimized ingroup will also be a future victim (i.e.,
victim role stability), FOV expresses the worry that the
ingroup will shift from victim to victimizer (victim role
reversal).
The FOV orientation might seem counterintuitive. Why
would victims be worried about the eventuality that they
would turn into victimizers? However, FOV may be traced to
several sources. In many cultures, moral guidelines warn
people against repeating evils that have been done (or could
be done) to them unto others. For example, the Silver Rule
that states “Do not do to others what you would not have
them do unto you” is shared by most religions and many
philosophical schools (Flew, 1979, p. 134). Such moral rules
are directed to all human beings, not particularly toward
members of victimized groups. However, when members of
victimized groups contemplate the evil done to their group,
the ensuing “do not do unto others” clause may automati-
cally follow. Consistently, observers attribute greater moral
obligation not to harm others to members of historically per-
secuted groups (Warner & Branscombe, 2012). FOV could
also be the result of fear of moral contagion: People some-
times believe that “essence” or properties, including evil, are
transmitted when two objects come into contact (Rozin,
Haidt, & McCauley, 2008). Finally, individuals who have
experienced severe abuse in childhood experience doubt
over their parenting abilities and fear that they might victim-
ize their children (DiLillo, 2001; Fitzgerald, Shipman,
Jackson, McMahon, & Hanley, 2005). Similarly, members of
historically traumatized groups may believe that their
ingroup’s past suffering places its members in particular dan-
ger of becoming contaminated by the evil essence of their
victimizers and turning evil themselves.
While most group members who strongly endorse one
orientation are likely to exhibit low levels of the opposing
orientation, it is possible for an individual to be high on both
orientations (i.e., simultaneously believe that it is the
ingroup’s obligation to defend its members at all costs, and
that it must not excessively harm its enemies) or to be low on
both (possibly attributing little importance or present rele-
vance to the past and the group’s painful history). Thus, the
two orientations are construed as generally negatively related
to each other but not mutually exclusive.
Antecedents and Consequences of
PIVO and FOV
Although all group members are subjected to the same soci-
etal messages and socialization agents regarding the shared
trauma, there are likely to be individual differences in PIVO
and FOV. We suggest that individual differences in PIVO
and FOV have roots in motivations and thus can be traced to
personal values.
Values express basic human motivations (Rohan, 2000;
Schwartz, 1992) and give meaning to, energize, and regulate
value-congruent behavior (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). As
motivational constructs, values affect perception and inter-
pretation (Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011). We reason that
the personal values are likely to affect the way people inter-
pret and construe their ingroup’s history, resulting in indi-
vidual differences in PIVO and FOV.
We draw on Schwartz’s basic values theory (Schwartz,
1992), tested and verified in extensive cross-cultural research
(e.g., Davidov, Schmidt, & Schwartz, 2008). Schwartz identi-
fied 10 basic values, ordered in a circular structure, which can
be summarized as two basic conflicts: (a) openness to change
values that express the motivation for independence, novelty,
and excitement (self-direction and stimulation) versus con-
servation values that express the motivation to preserve the
status quo (tradition, conformity, and security). (b) self-
enhancement values that express the pursuit of self-interests
(power, achievement) versus self-transcendence values that
express concern for others (benevolence, universalism).
We suggest that the most pertinent values to PIVO and
FOV are tradition and universalism, respectively. Tradition
values represent the goals of respect, commitment, and
acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture
or religion provide the self. A perpetual victimhood orienta-
tion helps maintain tradition values because it reflects an
overarching desire to maintain stability, and the tradition
value corresponds to the invariable, immutable nature of
enemies and history itself according to PIVO. Moreover,
PIVO plays a central role in the construction of group iden-
tity and the consecration of the trauma through ceremonies
and memorial days (e.g., Shiite Ashura or Jewish Passover;
Schori-Eyal, Klar, & Ben-Ami, in press), which reflect a
strong emphasis on tradition and make it a compelling ave-
nue for pursuing this value. The focus of FOV on potential
victim role reversal, implying transitivity and fluidity in a

Schori-Eyal et al. 3
central domain of group identity (i.e., morality), suggests
that it would be highly incongruous with the tradition value.
The universalism value represents the goal of concern for
the welfare of all people. It resonates with the autonomy
ethic of avoiding harm and injustice, and with the fairness/
reciprocity moral foundation (Sverdlik, Roccas, & Sagiv,
2012). Universalism is expected to correspond most closely
with FOV because of its inclusivity of all people as worthy of
tolerance and protection. The key is not sensitivity to suffer-
ing and disapproval of those who cause harm, which is
expressed in the value of benevolence and in the harm/care
moral foundation, but rather in who is considered a subject
that must be protected. FOV, which views all groups as
potential victims (and victimizers) and focuses on the suffer-
ing of outgroup members, is therefore expected to be the
most closely related to universalism. PIVO, which implies
that group victimhood is exclusive and leaves little room for
acknowledging even the potential of harm to others, is
incompatible with a value that stresses protection of all.
The main aim of the present research was to examine the
relationships of PIVO and FOV to emotions, attitudes, and
cognitions in current intergroup conflicts. We suggest that
their different foci can lead to contrasting responses to cur-
rent intergroup conflicts.
In line with previous research on group victimhood, we
suggest that PIVO entails a commitment to the defense of the
ingroup, and consequently greater support for aggressive mea-
sures against enemy outgroups, and lower guilt over harm
engendered by such measures. FOV, in contrast, entails a com-
mitment to refrain from mistreating enemy outgroup mem-
bers, leading to opposite responses. We expect these
worldviews to color their proponents’ perceptions as well. The
two specific processes we examine in the present work are
attribution of causality and memory of conflict-related events.
To test these hypotheses, we conducted six studies in the
context of two intergroup conflicts: the active Israeli–
Palestinian conflict (focusing on Jewish-Israeli attitudes) and
the recently abated Northern Ireland conflict (examining
both Catholics and Protestants). In Studies 1a to 1c, con-
ducted in Israel, we examine the relationships of PIVO and
FOV with emotional responses and behavioral tendencies
toward the enemy outgroup. In Study 2, conducted in
Northern Ireland, we examine forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion. In Study 3 (Israel), we examine the relationship between
PIVO and FOV and attributing responsibility for the out-
break of a series of hostilities through temporal sequencing.
In Study 4 (Israel), we examine group members’ recall of
events related to ingroup and outgroup victims of the inter-
group conflict. The sample sizes in all studies would allow to
detect medium-sized effects with .80 power.
Study 1
We examined PIVO and FOV among Jewish-Israelis at three
points in time. Sample 1a was collected during a period of
relative calm in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1b was
conducted during and immediately following an escalation
that included massive Israeli operations in the Gaza strip and
Palestinian rocket fire on Israeli towns (Study 1b). Study 1c
was collected on a subsample of participants who had taken
part in Study 1a, during a period of renewed hostilities 6
months after the first assessment. In all three samples, we
examined the relationships of PIVO and FOV with moral
entitlement, tolerance of enemy collateral casualties (TECC),
and group-based guilt. Studies 1b and 1c included additional
measures, detailed below.
Moral entitlement is the belief that it is acceptable for the
ingroup to commit morally reprehensible acts against the
enemy outgroup. Beliefs about moral entitlement are found
among many members of groups involved in conflicts: For
example, up to 30% of respondents in eight war-affected
countries agreed with the statement “there is nothing that
combatants should not be allowed to do” (International
Committee for the Red Cross, 2010, p. 28). We propose that
the link between individual past trauma and entitlement to
receive special consideration (Bishop & Lane, 2000), focus
on one’s needs (McMullin, Wirth, & White, 2007), and
behave selfishly (Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010)
extends to group identity such that the higher the PIVO, the
higher the moral entitlement. In contrast, FOV reflects a
deep concern about the ingroup’s moral character and the
actions it takes, serving as a warning not to violate ethical
norms in wartime. Therefore, association between FOV and
moral entitlement is expected to be negative.
The core belief in the group’s license to breach moral
norms may serve as an antecedent to various harmful
responses. Moral entitlement is predicted to mediate the asso-
ciations of PIVO and FOV with more specific behavioral ten-
dencies and emotional responses. In the current study, we
examined group-based guilt—an aversive emotion experi-
enced over actions taken by one’s group that are perceived as
illegitimate and harmful, even if the individual experiencing
it did not participate in the damaging act (Doosje, Branscombe,
Spears, & Manstead, 1998; Roccas, Klar, & Liviatan, 2006),
and on tolerance of enemy casualties, which we define as the
endorsement of military tactics that inadvertently target civil-
ians who are not actively aiding enemy militant forces.
Because FOV is concerned with harming others—almost a
form of prospective guilt—we expect moral entitlement to
mediate the FOV-guilt relationship only partially. The full
theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 1.
The usefulness of PIVO and FOV depends on their contri-
bution above and beyond orientations that have been studied
in the past. Therefore, Study 1b included other potentially
relevant predictors of group-based guilt and TECC, namely,
religiosity, political orientation, group identification, Right-
Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), and the Social Dominance
Orientation (SDO). Extensive research indicates that these
constructs are strongly associated with prejudice (Duckitt &
Sibley, 2007) and with negativity toward outgroups

4 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
(Altemeyer, 1998; Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010; Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999). For example, religiosity was shown to be posi-
tively related to support for political violence (e.g., Canetti,
Hobfoll, Pedhazur, & Zaidise, 2010) and military acts (e.g.,
Froese & Mencken, 2009). A right-wing political orientation
was found to be negatively related to group-based guilt (e.g.,
Roccas, Klar, & Liviatan, 2004) and positively related to
exonerating cognitions in response to ingroup transgressions
(e.g., Figueiredo, Valentim & Doosje, 2011) and to endorse-
ment of unintentional killing of outgroup civilians (Kimhi,
2014; Pyszczynski et al., 2006; Uhlmann, Pizarro,
Tannenbaum, & Ditto, 2009). Group identification was nega-
tively related to group-based guilt for the ingroup’s past
infractions (e.g., Doosje et al., 1998) and with higher levels
of support for aggression against outgroup members (Lickel,
Miller, Stenstrom, Denson, & Schmader, 2006; Yzerbyt,
Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003; for review, see
Roccas & Elster, 2012).
In sum, RWA, SDO, identification, religiosity, and politi-
cal orientation are expected to predict group-based guilt and
tolerance of enemy civilian casualties. In Study 1b, we tested
the distinctive contribution of PIVO and FOV to the predic-
tion of group-based guilt and TECC above and beyond these
well-established predictors. In Study 1c, we examined
whether the relationships between variables in the proposed
model were not the result of measuring all the constructs at
the same time. To do so, the main dependent variables were
measured 6 months after the assessment of PIVO and FOV.
During the second measurement, we also measured partici-
pants’ basic values; as values are stable and abstract
motivational constructs (Jin & Rounds, 2012; Schwartz,
1992), we did not expect them to have changed, and there-
fore they were tested as predictors of PIVO and FOV.
Study 1a
Method
Participants and procedure. Four hundred twelve Jewish-Israeli
participants completed the study (203 female, M age = 40.86,
SD = 15.02). Participants completed the survey individually
on the Internet in exchange for a small monetary compensa-
tion. The data were collected by a survey organization.1
Measures. Unless stated otherwise, all items ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To anchor perceptions
of the group’s history in a specific traumatic occurrence, par-
ticipants were asked to recall and write a short description of an
event in which the ingroup (the people of Israel) had been
harmed by another group. Unless otherwise specified, this
anchoring procedure preceded each measurement of PIVO.
PIVO was measured using 12 items (e.g., “All our ene-
mies throughout history share a common denominator—the
will to annihilate us,” α = .89).
FOV was measured using 13 items (e.g., “We are in dan-
ger of treating other peoples in the same way that we were
treated by our worst enemies”; α = .94).
Moral entitlement was measured using 10 items (e.g.,
“Harming innocents is certainly justified when our existence
is being threatened”; α = .92).
Figure 1. Expected results of historical group trauma.
Note. This figure illustrates the expected results of historical group trauma and the relationships between them. Group trauma is represented in the
model but its magnitude is not assessed. The relationship between group trauma and the associated worldviews is not quantified.

Schori-Eyal et al. 5
Group-based guilt was measured using seven items based
on Roccas et al. (2006; sample item: “I feel guilty over the
way Israel treats the Palestinians”; α = .87). TECC was mea-
sured using response to a vignette depicting a decision to
assassinate an enemy militant leader by firing rockets from
an attack helicopter. The participants were presented with a
table depicting the trade-off between the number of likely
collateral casualties and the probability of achieving the mil-
itary goal (i.e., successful assassination) and were asked to
decide on the magnitude of the missile based on the resulting
expectancy of success/collateral casualties. The response
scale ranged from 1 (40% chance of success, no civilian
casualties) to 5 (100% chance of success, up to 20 civilian
casualties).
Religiosity was measured using a single item (“How reli-
gious are you?”) with responses ranging from 1 (not at all
religious) to 7 (extremely religious).
Political orientation was measured using a single item
(“How would you describe your political attitudes?”) with
responses ranging from 1 (radical left) to 7 (radical right).
Results
We first examined the content of the historical traumas
recalled by the participants. The events were categorized into
five time periods, ranging from “antiquity” (e.g., the exodus
from Egypt) to “1948-present.” Forty-five participants did
not mention an event or wrote of irrelevant events (e.g.,
intragroup attacks); their scores on all variables were not sig-
nificantly different from those of participants who wrote
about an historical event, and therefore they were included in
the analyses. No differences in PIVO or FOV were found
between participants who recalled events from different time
periods. The means, standard deviations, and correlations
between all variables are presented in Table 1.
To examine the hypothesized relationships among the
variables, we used the AMOS 21 statistical program to con-
duct a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. We
first tested a measurement model. The measurement model
consisted of factor-loading paths from the latent constructs
to their manifest indicators and nondirectional correlations
between the latent variables. Due to the large number of
indicators, we followed the recommendations of Bandalos
(2002) and Little, Cunningham, Shahar, and Widaman
(2002) and created parcels to optimize the measurement
structure of constructs in SEM procedures. A satisfactory fit
is generally indicated by a nonsignificant χ2, a χ2/df ratio ≤
3, a comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .95, and a root mean
square of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .08 (p close > .05-.10;
Hu & Bentler, 1999). The measurement model displayed
very good fit to the data, χ2(38, N = 412) = 98.87, p < .001;
normed fit index (NFI) = .99, incremental fit index (IFI) =
.99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06. Correlations between the con-
structs corresponded with the ones reported in Table 1.
Factor loadings on all latent variables were significant and
ranged from .73 to .91.
We then tested the full hypothesized model linking PIVO
and FOV, via the mediating role of moral entitlement, to
group-based guilt and TECC. To assess overall model fit, we
used the chi-square test, the CFI, and the RMSEA. The
model provided very good fit to the data: χ2 = 114.65, p <
.001; χ2/df ratio = 2.34; CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06 (p close =
.19). Standardized parameter estimates were in line with our
predictions and are shown in Figure 2. As indicated in the
figure, PIVO led to an increase and FOV to a decrease in the
perception that the ingroup is morally entitled to do any-
thing to defend itself, which in turn led to heightened TECC
and decreased group-based guilt. Moral entitlement fully
mediated the effect of PIVO and partially mediated the
effect of FOV.
We next tested an alternative model in which the order of
variables was changed to reflect processes other than the one
we proposed. In the alternative model, moral decision mak-
ing leads to increased guilt, which is then mitigated by moral
entitlement that leads to the PIVO and FOV orientation. We
report the Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974)
for comparison of nonnested models, where the model with
the lowest AIC is considered most parsimonious and robust.
The alternative model did not fit the data as well as the model
we suggested: χ2 = 548.13, p < .001, χ2/df ratio = 10.75; CFI
= .90, RMSEA = .16 (p close = .000). The value for the alter-
native model was AIC = 626.19, compared with AIC =
196.65 in our proposed model. The results indicated the
PIVO and FOV are indeed separate constructs and provided
support for our proposed model.
We conducted two hierarchical linear regressions to
examine the distinctive contribution of PIVO and FOV to
predicting group-based guilt (Table 2). In the first step, polit-
ical orientation and religiosity were entered, predicting
group-based guilt. In the second step, PIVO and FOV were
entered. PIVO and FOV were both significant predictors of
group-based guilt, above and beyond religiosity and political
orientation. The same analysis was conducted to predict
TECC: again, PIVO was a significant predictor, but FOV
was not.
To examine whether PIVO and FOV contributed to the
prediction of group-based guilt and TECC above and beyond
additional well-established predictors, and to examine its sta-
bility during conflict escalation, we conducted Study 1b.
Study 1b
Method
Participants and procedure. Two hundred fifteen Jewish-
Israeli students completed the study in exchange for course
credit (178 female, M age = 24.94, SD = 4.93). As part of a
larger study, presented as a study on social and political atti-
tudes, they completed measures of RWA, SDO, group iden-
tification, perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation (PIVO),
FOV, moral entitlement, group-based guilt, and TECC. The
study was conducted during an escalation in the conflict that

6 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Variables in Study 1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. PIVO Study 1a M = 5.04,
SD = 1.29
Study 1b M = 4.58,
SD = 1.17
Study 1c M = 5.04,
SD = 1.29
2. FOV Study 1a M = 2.65,
SD = 1.54
−.52***
Study 1b M = 3.24,
SD = 1.40
−.41***
Study 1c M = 2.65,
SD = 1.54
−.52***
3. Moral entitlement Study 1a M = 4.45,
SD = 1.46
.56*** −.42***
Study 1b M = 4.03,
SD = 1.40
.63*** −.44***
Study 1c M = 4.53,
SD = 1.42
.53***
4. Group-based guilt Study 1a M = 2.42,
SD = 1.40
−.52*** .79*** −.46***
Study 1b M = 3.06,
SD = 1.45
−.60*** .64*** −.66***
Study 1c M = 2.22,
SD = 1.35
−.54***
5. TECC Study 1a M = 3.31,
SD = 1.48
.32*** −.24*** .47*** −.30***
Study 1b M = 3.02,
SD = 1.37
.37*** −.34*** .52*** −.44***
Study 1c M = 3.35,
SD = 1.44
.37***
6. RWA Study 1a NA
Study 1b M = 3.97,
SD = 1.01
.60*** −.47*** .54*** −.54*** .32***
Study 1c NA
7. SDO Study 1a NA
Study 1b M = 2.60,
SD = 0.92
.12†−.16* .30*** −.26*** .29*** .34
Study 1c NA
8. Group
identification
Study 1a NA
Study 1b M = 5.65,
SD = 1.32
.48*** −.37*** .41*** −.26*** .26*** .52*** .11†
Study 1c NA
9. Religiosity Study 1a M = 3.16,
SD = 2.11
.42*** −.42*** .26*** −.37*** .18***
Study 1b M = 2.33,
SD = 1.57
.44*** −.34*** .27*** −.21*** .10 .57*** .002 .38***
Study 1c NA
10. Right-wing
orientation
Study 1a M = 4.65,
SD = 1.31
.49*** −.56*** .50*** −.60*** .31*** .46***
Study 1b M = −.34,
SD = 3.05
.58*** −.49*** .59*** −.65*** .43*** .50*** .18*** .43*** .45***
Study 1c NA
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing; TECC = tolerance of enemy collateral casualties; RWA = right-wing
authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation.
†p < .1. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Schori-Eyal et al. 7
involved an extensive ground-force operation in the Gaza
Strip. To control for possible effects of PIVO and FOV on
moral decision making, half of the participants completed
the TECC measure before the PIVO and FOV measures, and
the other half completed it following the measurement of
these variables. No order effects were found.
Measures. Unless otherwise mentioned, all items ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
SDO was measured using the 16-item scale (Pratto,
Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; α = .87).
RWA was measured using Altemeyer’s (1981) 30-item
scale; responses ranged from 1 (do not agree at all) to 9
(completely agree), α = .88.
Group identification was measured using a 16-item scale
(Sagiv, Roccas, & Hazan, 2012), ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); α = .92.
PIVO (α = .89), FOV (α = .94), moral entitlement (α =
.92), group-based guilt (α = .87), TECC, and religiosity were
identical to the measures used in Study 1a.
Political orientation was measured using two items (iden-
tification with right wing, identification with left wing),
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). Political orienta-
tion was calculated by deducting the score of the left-wing
item from the right-wing item; higher scores indicate right-
wing orientation.
Results
We first conducted an SEM analysis identical to the one in
Study 1a. The model provided a good fit to the data: χ2 =
93.54, p < .001; CFI = .98, RMSEA = .065 (p close = .10).
We then conducted two hierarchical linear regressions to
assess the distinctive contribution of PIVO and FOV to
Figure 2. Model linking PIVO and FOV to group-based guilt and TECC via moral entitlement (Study 1a).
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing; TECC = tolerance of enemy collateral casualties.
Table 2. Contribution of PIVO and FOV to Predicting Group-Based Guilt and TECC (Study 1a).
R2Fchange B
Predictor Group-based guilt TECC Group-based guilt TECC Group-based guilt TECC
Step 1 .36 .09 115.78*** 20.93***
Religiosity −.12*** .05
Political orientation −.54*** .29***
Step 2 .65 .12 168.63*** 7.95***
PIVO −.11** .22***
FOV .63*** −.02
Religiosity .04 −.01
Political orientation −.21*** .19**
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing; TECC = tolerance of enemy collateral casualties.

8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
predicting group-based guilt and TECC (Table 3). In the
first step, RWA, SDO, group identification, political orienta-
tion, and religiosity were entered, predicting group-based
guilt. PIVO and FOV were entered in the second step. They
were both significant predictors of group-based guilt, above
and beyond RWA, SDO, identification, religiosity, and
political orientation. The same pattern was found when pre-
dicting TECC.
The results of Study 1b thus provided additional support
for the proposed model during an escalation in the conflict.
The goal of the next study was twofold: to examine whether
the model would be replicated when the outcome variables
were measured at a later time and to test the role of personal
values as possible antecedents.
Study 1c
Method
Participants and procedure. Six months after the completion
of Study 1a, 262 Jewish-Israeli participants (119 female, M
age = 43.19, SD = 14.72) were recruited from the larger sam-
ple of Study 1a, and responded to an Internet questionnaire.
Participants completed the survey individually on the Inter-
net in exchange for a small monetary compensation. The
data were collected by the same survey organization. No sig-
nificant differences in any of the variables (PIVO, FOV,
moral entitlement, group-based guilt, and TECC) were found
between participants who only completed the first assess-
ment and those who took part in both waves. Participants
completed measures for personal values, moral entitlement,
group-based guilt, TECC, and social desirability.
Measures. Moral entitlement (α = .93), group-based guilt
(α = .95), and TECC were identical to the measures used in
the previous studies.
Personal values were measured using a 10-item values
questionnaire (Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016). The items were
derived from Schwartz’s (1992) definitions of the 10 basic
values (e.g., the item measuring the importance of self-direc-
tion read “Independent thought and action-choosing, creat-
ing, exploring”). The responses were made on a 9-point scale
ranging from −1 (opposed to my values) through 0 (not
important), to 7 (of supreme importance). The use of the
response scale for values was controlled by subtracting each
respondent’s mean rating of all values from each value score
(Schwartz, 1992).
Social desirability was measured using six items based on
Paulhus (1991), ranging from 1 (untrue) to 7 (very true),
sample item: “I don’t gossip about other people’s business”;
α = .75.
Results
We conducted an SEM analysis similar to the one used in
Studies 1a and 1b, using PIVO and FOV collected in T1 (6
months prior to the study). The model provided a good fit to
the data: χ2 = 157.66, p < .001; CFI = .97, RMSEA = .069 (p
close = .02). We then repeated the analysis while controlling
for social desirability. The model again provided a good fit to
the data: χ2 = 138.60, p < .001; CFI = .98, RMSEA = .064 (p
close = .07). We proceeded to test our hypotheses regarding
values as predictors of PIVO and FOV.
We calculated correlations between PIVO, FOV, and the
10 values (Figure 3). As hypothesized, PIVO most strongly
Table 3. Contribution of PIVO and FOV to Predicting Group-Based Guilt and TECC (Study 1b).
R2Fchange B
Predictor Group-based guilt TECC Group-based guilt TECC Group-based guilt TECC
Step 1 .50 .24 43.30*** 14.05***
RWA −.34*** .12
SDO −.06 .16*
Identification .06 .10
Religiosity .16* −.17*
Political orientation −.51** .38***
Step 2 .63 .27 34.99*** 4.19*
PIVO −.25*** .17*
FOV .36*** −.14*
RWA −.16* .02
SDO −.07 .17*
Identification .01 .06
Religiosity .18** −.19*
Political orientation −.32*** .29***
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing; TECC = tolerance of enemy collateral casualties; RWA = right-wing
authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation.

Schori-Eyal et al. 9
correlated with tradition and FOV most strongly correlated
with universalism. Correlations with the other values fol-
lowed the sinusoidal curve found in previous studies on
values.
Discussion
In Study 1, we made the first steps in examining mindsets
associated with an historical group trauma. We reasoned that
group trauma does not necessarily translate only into a mind-
set of group victimhood. Rather, it can also translate into
heightened sensitivity to the possible moral infractions of the
ingroup. Study 1 provided support for the predicted relation-
ship between PIVO and FOV and examined their relation-
ships with emotional responses and behavioral tendencies
during an ongoing current conflict. The findings in all three
samples indicate that the two orientations are two distinct
constructs, moderately negatively correlated, that predict
group-based guilt and TECC in opposite directions (partially
mediated by moral entitlement). The predictive value of
PIVO and FOV was above and beyond that of well-estab-
lished variables that predicted negativity toward outgroups.
The model was replicated across three samples collected
during different phases of a conflict that differed extensively
in the intensity of the hostilities. Furthermore, findings of
Study 1c indicate that the proposed model remained stable
when the predictive variables (PIVO and FOV) were mea-
sured over 6 months prior to the assessment of the dependent
variables.
These findings support our assertion that historical group
trauma can lead to a mindset of group victimhood and con-
flict-supporting attitudes and emotions, or it can evoke indi-
viduals’ moral sensitivity (i.e., FOV) and resistance to
potentially and morally reprehensible ingroup actions. These
relationships will be discussed further in the general discus-
sion because the association of PIVO and FOV with conflict-
related attitudes and emotions were also examined in Studies
2 to 4.
Although the two mindsets refer to historical group trauma,
they had opposing relationships with personal values. As
hypothesized, PIVO correlated most positively with tradition
values and FOV correlated most positively with universalism
values. PIVO also correlated positively with conformity and
negatively with self-direction values; FOV correlated posi-
tively with stimulation and self-direction, and negatively with
tradition values.
High scores on PIVO and low scores on FOV reflect
adherence with the dominant ingroup narrative in Jewish-
Israeli society, which emphasizes the ingroup’s unique vic-
timhood and rejects the notion that it might become a
victimizer. Thus, the pattern of correlations of PIVO and
FOV with conformity, tradition, and self-direction values is
consistent with the motivations one would expect from peo-
ple who adhere to ingroup norms (high PIVO scores) versus
those that defy them (high FOV scores; Klar, Schori-Eyal, &
Klar, 2013).
To test the generalizability of PIVO and FOV beyond a
specific social context, we conducted Study 2 in Belfast,
Northern Ireland, among Catholic and Protestant participants.
Study 2
During the many years of conflict in Northern Ireland, over
3,500 people lost their lives and some 40,000 people suffered
injuries (McDowell, 2007). The conflict reached a settlement
with the signing of what is known as the Good Friday
Agreement in 1998. Despite its limitations, the Good Friday
agreement attempted to provide a framework through which
disagreement could be contained without resorting to vio-
lence (Gilligan, 2003).
However, the psychological realities of conflict often
resist change toward reconciliation, despite a political peace
agreement (Noor et al., 2008). Successful reconciliation
depends on finding a fitting way of dealing with past inter-
group wrongdoings (Nadler, 2002; Staub, 2006). Forgiveness
entails letting go of negative thoughts and resentment
Figure 3. Zero-order correlations between PIVO, FOV, and basic values (Study 1c).
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing.

10 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
directed at those perceived as responsible for past wrongdo-
ings, while encouraging groups to focus on a positive future
(Minow, 1998; Nadler & Saguy, 2003).
Although all group members were exposed to the conflict
and the normative societal discourse it generated, we expected
to find individual differences in the ways traumatic group
events and the messages related to them were internalized.
We were interested in the relationships of PIVO and FOV
with the willingness to forgive the actions of the past and
move from a formal resolution to genuine reconciliation.
We expected PIVO to be negatively associated with for-
giveness and reconciliation because of its focus on historical
wrongdoings as a perpetual reality. As long as the past is per-
ceived as the present, closure and forgiveness are unlikely.
Conversely, FOV—which acknowledges that the ingroup is
also capable of perpetrating harm—should be more condu-
cive to forgiveness and reconciliation.
The study also included another measure of group-based
victimhood: competitive victimhood (Noor et al., 2008).
According to this approach, the two groups in an intergroup
conflict 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” (Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, &
Nadler, 2012, p. 352), and is negatively associated with ten-
dencies toward intergroup forgiveness and reconciliation
(Noor et al., 2008). Although competitive victimhood and
PIVO share the belief in the uniqueness of group trauma, the
crux of PIVO is the belief in the perpetual nature of the
ingroup’s victimhood (e.g., current adversaries re-embody
historical opponents) and a resultant mistrust of outgroups.
Given the different emphasis of the PIVO concept, we
expected that it would make a distinct contribution to pre-
dicting aspects of reconciliation above and beyond competi-
tive victimhood.
Method
Participants and procedure. One hundred forty-nine respon-
dents (119 females, age range = 18-55, M = 25.30, SD =
8.17) completed the following scales: PIVO, FOV, competi-
tive victimhood, forgiveness, and reconciliation. One hun-
dred thirty-six of the participants were students who
completed the questionnaire online in exchange for course
credit. The remainder of the participants completed a paper
version. The study was presented as research on social atti-
tudes and intergroup relationships. Participants identified
themselves as having either a “Catholic” (n = 89) or “Protes-
tant” (n = 54) background. Only six identified as “Other.”
Measures. PIVO (α = .89) and FOV (α = .92) were identical
to the measures used in Study 1 (translated into English; par-
ticipants were not asked to record a specific traumatic event
from their group’s history). Competitive victimhood was
measured using five items based on Noor et al., 2008
(sample item: “Overall, the proportion of trauma due to “The
Troubles” has been more severe in my community than in the
other community”; α = .88). Eleven items were used to mea-
sure forgiveness and reconciliation (sample item: “I would
like to ask my community to forgive the other community for
their acts of violence”; α = .91). The response scales for com-
petitive victimhood and for forgiveness and reconciliation
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Results and Discussion
No differences were found between Catholics and Protestants
on any of the variables; therefore, the data were collapsed
across the two groups. The means, standard deviations, and
correlations between all variables are presented in Table 4.
We tested the hypotheses with hierarchical linear regression
analysis (Table 5). Due to the wide range of participants’
ages, which was expected to affect the way in which they
experienced and recalled the conflict, we controlled for age.
In the first step, age and competitive victimhood were entered.
Competitive victimhood was a significant predictor of inter-
group forgiveness and reconciliation: The higher the percep-
tion of one’s ingroup as the more victimized party, the lower
the willingness to forgive and reconcile. In the second step,
PIVO and FOV were entered: both predicted willingness to
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between
Variables in Study 2.
M (SD) 1 2 3
1. PIVO 2.20 (0.81)
2. FOV 2.52 (0.94) .32***
3. Competitive victimhood 2.73 (1.11) .40*** .02
4. Forgiveness and
reconciliation
4.30 (0.72) −.51*** −.05 −.37**
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of
victimizing.
***p < .001.
Table 5. Contribution of PIVO and FOV to Predicting
Forgiveness and Reconciliation (Study 2).
Predictor R2Fchange Β
Step 1 .11 9.86***
Age .13
Competitive victimhood −.32***
Step 2 .28 18.46***
PIVO −.51***
FOV .16*
Age .16*
Competitive victimhood −.12
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of
victimizing.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Schori-Eyal et al. 11
forgive and reconcile, above and beyond age and competitive
victimhood. As expected, the higher the PIVO and the lower
the FOV, the lower the support participants expressed for for-
giveness and reconciliation.
The results of Study 2 indicate that PIVO and FOV are
relevant not only in an active violent conflict but also in a
conflict that has reached a degree of political resolution.
While the levels of PIVO and FOV were lower than in the
Israeli samples, t(274) = 7.91, p < .01; t(275) = 9.89, p < .01,
they retained their predictive power.
The lower levels of PIVO and FOV in Study 2 may have
been due to the relatively lower levels of ongoing conflict in
Northern Ireland at the time and suggest that even after a pro-
longed and bloody conflict, the activation of trauma-based
orientations, such as that of other knowledge structures, is
contextualized rather than chronic (see Eitam & Higgins,
2010). Although the historical events and their psychological
outcomes continue to resonate in the public realm, such orien-
tations became less active in individuals’ minds.
These results suggest that the historical trauma-driven
orientations are important not only during the period of the
active conflict but also throughout the transition from formal
resolution to reconciliation. The willingness to forgive out-
group members and strive for a more harmonious intergroup
relationship is fundamental to peaceful coexistence (Tam
et al., 2008). PIVO is counterproductive to forgiveness and
reconciliation, whereas FOV promotes them. Unlike PIVO,
FOV does not include the implicit assumption that acknowl-
edging outgroup suffering detracts from the ingroup’s victim
status. Those high on FOV can remember their own group’s
suffering and concede the pain of adversarial outgroups; one
does not come at the expense of the other.
The results underscore the distinctive contribution of
PIVO and FOV, even when competitive victimhood is taken
into account. This suggests that representations of trauma are
complex and multidimensional, and indicates that the two
orientations make a unique contribution to understanding the
role of group trauma in contemporary conflicts.
Studies 1 and 2 focused on attitudes, emotions, and behav-
ioral tendencies. In the next study, we turned our attention to
the process of attribution and examined the effect of PIVO
and FOV on the ways in which responsibility for outbreak of
hostility is assigned.
Study 3
The research of attributions of responsibility at the inter-
group level is scarce but consistently shows that people favor
the ingroup in attributing responsibility. People make situa-
tional attributions for negative acts committed by an ingroup
member, but make dispositional attributions if the same acts
are committed by an outgroup member (e.g., Doosje &
Branscombe, 2003; see Hewstone, 1990, for a review).
Consistently, a study of Turkish construals of the Armenian
massacres at the beginning of the 20th century and Hutus’
and Tutsis’ construal of the ethnic conflict in Burundi,
revealed that people attributed less responsibility to the
ingroup than to the outgroup, and that respondents viewed
the outgroups as instigators of the violence (Bilali, Tropp, &
Dasgupta, 2012).
In Study 3, we focused on individual differences in attri-
bution of responsibility for instigating hostilities and exam-
ined PIVO and FOV as predictors. We reason that attributions
of responsibility for ingroup moral transgressions are an
important component of both orientations. PIVO is the per-
ception of the ingroup as eternal perpetual victim, which
entails the belief that enemy outgroups are always at fault.
High-PIVO individuals are likely to believe that the respon-
sibility for mutual aggression cannot lie with the ingroup.
Conversely, FOV is the concern that the ingroup might act
reprehensibly, similar to its past enemies. Thus, it entails an
increased willingness to accept that the ingroup might be
responsible for violent clashes with enemy outgroups.
We examined the role of the two orientations in attributing
responsibility both implicitly and explicitly. Participants were
presented with a series of violent clashes between Israelis and
Palestinians, and asked to determine the order of events. The
temporal sequence served as the indicator of implicit attribu-
tion of responsibility. Participants were also asked explicitly
about responsibility, both in the current series of events and
the conflict in general. We expected high PIVO to predict
attribution of responsibility to the Palestinians and high FOV
to predict attribution of responsibility to the Israelis for the
violent events.
Method
Participants and procedure. Ninety-four Jewish-Israeli uni-
versity students (60 female, age range = 21-63, M = 26.71,
SD = 6.55) completed the study in small groups in exchange
for a ticket to enter a lottery to win a prize of 200 NIS
(approximately US$50.00).
Measures. Unless otherwise mentioned, all measures ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
PIVO (M = 3.41, SD = 1.18, α = .89) and FOV (M = 3.32,
SD = 1.52, α = .95) were identical to the measures used in the
previous studies. The Temporal Sequencing Task (TST),
developed for this study, was presented to participants as
“perception of temporal sequence and construal of causal-
ity.” Participants were given four cards, each of which por-
trayed a violent clash between Israelis and Palestinians, all
occurring in the same geographical region in the West Bank.
In two cases, the damage was incurred by Palestinians and in
two cases by Jewish-Israelis. The events were chosen so that
they would be of the same magnitude and any sequence
would be plausible to the participants. Magnitude and plausi-
bility were tested in a pilot study. Sample events: “Israel
Defense Forces (IDF) mobile infantry entered Nablus in
search of insurgents. Dozens of families were left homeless

12 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
following the operation”; “Two Israelis were wounded when
their car was shot at, while driving toward the Itz’har settle-
ment near Nablus.”
Participants were given a 30 cm sheet of cardboard depict-
ing a time axis, the four event cards in random order, and a
stapler. They were told that the board represented a “hypo-
thetical timeline,” and were asked to read the four cards care-
fully and place them in the chronological order that seemed
the most logical. Events could be placed at the same point on
the board (representing simultaneous occurrences), or at dif-
ferent points (representing consecutive occurrences). Implicit
causality was derived from the order in which the partici-
pants placed the cards. We assumed that the more the events
in which Israelis were harmed by Palestinians were arranged
at the beginning of the sequence, the more the responsibility
would be attributed to the Palestinian outgroup, and vice
versa. For each participant, the events were coded based on
their location (the first event in the sequence was coded 1,
the last event 4). Events that were placed in the same location
were assigned a mean score code (e.g., 2.5). Two scores were
computed: one for the events in which Palestinians were
harmed and one for the events in which Israelis were harmed.
The implicit causality score was calculated as the difference
between the two scores. High scores indicated attribution of
responsibility for the hostilities to Palestinians.
We measured explicit attribution of responsibility for the
specific sequence of events with three items (e.g., “Regarding
the events you just read about, which of the parties involved
was the initial instigator?” M = 3.29, SD = 1.24, α = .80). We
used the same three items to measure attribution of general
responsibility, except that participants were asked to answer
the questions with regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict in
general (M = 2.87, SD = 1.16, α = .81). On both measures,
the response scale ranged from 1 (Palestinians) to 7 (Israelis).
Thus, high scores indicated attributing responsibility to the
Israeli ingroup.
Results and Discussion
We tested our hypotheses using linear regression analyses
(Table 6). In the first regression, PIVO and FOV were entered
as predictors of the order of events in the TST (representing
implicit attribution of responsibility). Both were significant
predictors of implicit causality attribution. The higher the
PIVO scores, the more the responsibility was attributed to
the Palestinians; the higher the FOV scores, the more the
responsibility was attributed to the Israelis.
The second set of regression analyses included the same
predictor variables, with explicit responsibility (specific,
general) as the dependent variables. As expected, with regard
to both dependent variables, the lower the PIVO scores and
the higher the FOV scores, the more the responsibility was
attributed to the ingroup. In sum, the results of Study 3 pro-
vide further support to the relationship of PIVO and FOV to
psychological processes at the core of intergroup conflicts.
Furthermore, these findings suggest that the two orientations
might be self-perpetuating: given ambiguous stimuli (in this
case, not indicating causality in any direction), individuals
interpret the information according to their dominant mind-
set. Those high on PIVO are more likely to interpret the
information as indicating that the ingroup was a victim,
while those high on FOV are more likely to interpret the
information as indication that the ingroup might be respon-
sible for the violence. The resulting perceptual biases con-
firm and strengthen the original orientation. In the next study,
we examined another cognitive process that may be part of
the self-perpetuation of PIVO and FOV: memory.
Study 4
Information implying moral transgressions committed by the
ingroup conflicts with the motivation to view one’s group in
a positive light (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Thus, reminders of ingroup wrongdoing are often
managed by defensive reactions such as denial, victim-blam-
ing, derogation, and infrahumanization of victims (Castano
& Giner-Sorolla, 2006; Noor et al., 2012; Roccas et al., 2004;
Sullivan, Landau, Branscombe, & Rothschild, 2012). In this
study, we focus on motivated forgetting, namely, the attempt
to avoid or forget information that is potentially embarrass-
ing, painful, or threatening (Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Thompson,
Morton, & Fraser, 1997). The processes tapped in motivated
forgetting, whether selective inattention, suppression, or
refusal to acknowledge or repeat threatening information
(Cooper & Stone, 2004; Thompson et al., 1997; Wegner,
1989), help individuals restore their peace of mind that was
upended by troubling information (Wegner & Schneider,
1989). Rotella and Richeson (2013) exemplified motivated
forgetting in the context of intergroup relations. When
American participants read a passage describing the negative
treatment of Native Americans by early Americans (i.e.,
ingroup members), they exhibited poorer memory compared
with participants to whom the perpetrators were described as
European settlers (i.e., outgroup members).
We reason that the two orientations stemming from histori-
cal group trauma would have a similar motivational impact on
memory. In this study, we examined the relationship of PIVO
and FOV to recollection of moral transgressions, both those
committed by the ingroup (outgroup victims) and against it
Table 6. PIVO and FOV as Predictors of Attribution of Causality
(Study 3).
Implicit
attribution
Specific explicit
attribution
General explicit
attribution
B SE B βB SE B βB SE B β
PIVO .44 .19 .26* −.20 .10 −.19* −.30 .08 −.29***
FOV −.31 .15 −.24* .50 .07 .61*** .44 .06 .57***
Note. Implicit attribution: R2 = .18, ps < .001. Specific explicit attribution:
R2 = .54, ps < .001. General explicit attribution: R2 = .61, ps < .001. PIVO
= perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation; FOV = fear of victimizing.

Schori-Eyal et al. 13
(ingroup victims). We expected an interaction between PIVO
and group identity: increased forgetting of outgroup members’
suffering, increased memory of ingroup members’ suffering,
or both.
FOV represents sensitivity toward potential ingroup
moral misconduct: We reasoned that high levels of FOV
could lead to increased sensitivity to the suffering of out-
group members, resulting in an interaction between FOV and
victims’ group identity. However, the concern inherent in
FOV for all people could also lead to a greater overall sensi-
tivity to harm regardless of group identity.
Method
Participants and procedure. One hundred thirty-eight Jewish-
Israeli university students (99 female, age range = 19-61, M
= 27.22, SD = 6.50) participated in exchange for course
credit. The experiment was presented to the participants as
two separate studies: a study on social and political attitudes,
and a study on reading comprehension. Participants first
completed the PIVO and FOV scales. They were then pre-
sented, as part of a reading comprehension study, with a one-
page description of a family whose home was hit by a missile
and were asked to read it attentively as they would be asked
about it later. Participants were randomly assigned to read
either about a Jewish-Israeli family hit by a Palestinian
rocket, or a Palestinian family hit by an IDF missile. Partici-
pants then engaged in a series of filler tasks for 1 hr, and
finally completed multiple-choice questions about the text.2
Measures. The measures of PIVO (M = 4.53, SD = 1.15, α =
.87) and FOV (M = 2.86, SD = 1.38, α = .94) were identical
to those used in the previous studies. The memory task was
comprised of a one-page passage describing either a Pales-
tinian- or Jewish-Israeli family. The text described their daily
routine disrupted by a direct hit by either an IDF missile or a
Palestinian rocket and the resulting injuries and damage.
Except for the family members’ names, place of residence,
and group identity, all details were identical. After a 1-hr
interval in which participants completed unrelated filler
tasks, participants were asked to answer 13 multiple-choice
questions testing their recall of the text. Four questions were
about neutral details (e.g., “What did the Qasab/Hadad fam-
ily have for supper?”) and nine were about the harm experi-
enced by family members (e.g., “How long was the
hospitalization of the most badly injured family member?”).
Accuracy of recall was calculated as the sum of all questions
answered correctly, ranging from 0 (no questions answered
correctly) to 13 (all questions answered correctly).
Results and Discussion
To examine whether the victims’ group identity affected
memory as a function of PIVO and FOV, we used Hayes’s
(2013) PROCESS macro. First we entered PIVO, the fami-
lies’ group identity and their interaction as predictors of the
harm experienced by the family: Model 1, R2 = .07, F(3, 134)
= 3.18, p = .03. There was no significant main effect for the
group identity manipulation (b = −.29, SE = 0.38, t = −0.75,
p = .47). The interaction of group identity with PIVO was
significant (b = −.69, SE = 0.34, t = −2.04, p = .04, 95% con-
fidence interval [CI] = [−1.35, −0.02]), indicating that PIVO
moderated the effects of the group identity of the victims on
memory of harm. An analysis of the conditional effects
revealed that the manipulation had a significant effect on
participants with high PIVO (those whose victimhood score
was 1 SD above the mean score; b = −1.07, SE = 0.54, t =
−1.97, p = .05). The manipulation did not significantly affect
memory of the damage narrative among low-victimhood
participants (those whose PIVO score was 1 SD below the
mean score; b = .50, SE = 0.54, t = .92, p = .36). Thus, high-
PIVO participants recalled harm significantly less accurately
when the victims were presented as outgroup members than
when they were presented as ingroup members (Figure 4).
We again used PROCESS Model 1 to examine whether
the manipulation affected memory as a function of FOV, R2
= .06, F(3, 134) = 2.81, p = .04. FOV (b = .38, SE = 0.14, t =
2.75, p = .007) had a positive main effect on memory accu-
racy. But there was no significant main effect for the group
identity manipulation (b = −.24, SE = 0.38, t = −.63, p = .53)
or for the interaction between FOV and the manipulation
(b = .13, SE = 0.28, t = .46, p = .65).
Finally, we examined both PIVO and FOV and their
respective interactions with the group identity manipulation
as predictors (PROCESS Model 3). This time, the model
was not significant, R2 = .11, F(8, 129) = 1.95, p = .06. We
suggest that this is due to the fact that PIVO and FOV are
both positively related to memory of ingroup harm. PIVO
was associated with greater accuracy of recall of harm to the
ingroup because such information is congruent with, and
strengthens the perception of, the group as an eternal victim.
In contrast, FOV was associated with accuracy of recall
because this orientation has its roots in the value of univer-
salism—including commitment to the welfare of all people
and sensitivity to their plight.
Figure 4. The effect of victims’ group identity on the degree of
accuracy in recalling harm as a function of PIVO.
Note. PIVO = perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation.

14 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
These results suggest that PIVO and FOV can affect
group members at a basic cognitive level. While FOV is
related to increased memory to all suffering—consistent
with its origins in the universalism value—PIVO is associ-
ated with a more selective form of attention bias. High levels
of PIVO lead to tuning out the suffering of outgroup mem-
bers, which is incongruent with the orientation’s focus on the
ingroup as the sole victim of aggressions past and present.
We reason that this form of motivated forgetting not only
helps manage the threat to the ingroup’s moral identity but
also contributes to the perpetuation of the worldview that
induces it.
General Discussion
We sought to achieve a better understanding of the ways
in which group members react to a shared historical
trauma. Previous research provides support for the notion
that experiences of group-level victimhood lead to con-
flict-enhancing emotions and cognitions. The present set
of studies extends this body of research. Our main goal,
however, was to examine another possible orientation that
could develop following historical trauma. We reasoned
that victimhood is not the only possible lesson that people
learn from past suffering of the ingroup. Historical group
trauma can also lead to FOV others. The two orientations,
PIVO and FOV, were expected to affect a variety of con-
flict-related attitudes, emotions, and behavioral
tendencies.
The first two studies show that PIVO and FOV are related
to a variety of conflict-related attitudes and emotions: group-
based guilt, support for aggressive actions against the enemy
outgroup, and support for forgiveness and reconciliation. In
Studies 3 and 4 we explored processes that could contribute to
the stability of PIVO and FOV. In both studies, we examined
how people react to information regarding the conflict. Study
3 shows PIVO and FOV were related to attribution of respon-
sibility for the outbreak of mutual hostilities. The higher the
PIVO and the lower the FOV, the more the participants con-
strued the timeline of hostilities in a way that puts outgroup
members as instigators and accountable for the hostilities. In
Study 4, participants were presented with new information
about damage to either ingroup or outgroup members. Whereas
FOV was associated with greater memory accuracy regardless
of victims’ group identity, high levels of PIVO were related
with reduced accuracy of memory when the information pre-
sented was about outgroup victims. These studies suggest that
PIVO and FOV are likely to be stable over time and that new
information is unlikely to easily affect them.
This raises the question of how the two orientations are
developed in the first place. So far, we have examined only
one possible antecedent—personal values. We suggest, how-
ever, that the social context is likely to have profound effects
on the development of these orientations.
The Effect of the Social Context on
PIVO and FOV
The present work illustrated the presence and effects of the
two orientations in two societies: Israel and Northern Ireland.
Can the findings be generalized to other societies as well? To
what extent are the roles of PIVO and FOV affected by the
specific social context? We are currently investigating these
constructs in different regions and contexts. Findings from
Poland (Skarżyńska, 2012), Serbia (Halperin, Cehajic, &
Schori, unpublished data), and the West Bank and Jordan
(Dugas et al., in press) are consistent with those presented in
the present research.
Future work should focus on the contextual variables that
engender each orientation. One element that may enable the
development of FOV is acknowledging that one’s group
may simultaneously have multiple roles: it may be a victim
in some domain (or historical period) while also holding a
very different and dominant status in another domain or
time. Research on social hierarchies and acknowledging
social inequity as privilege (Rosette & Tost, 2013), which is
in some respects parallel to the victim/aggressor duality at
the heart of FOV, indicate that this may be an important
element.
We also suggest that a precondition for the development
of FOV is the belief that one’s ingroup has enough power to
cause serious harm to other groups. The perils of victimizing
others are all but alien to a group devoid of actual ability to
cause significant harm. However, we suggest that such
extreme powerlessness is rare. The weaker party in a conflict
can often cause extensive damage to the stronger party.
Attacks of this sort may run counter to the humanistic per-
ceptions and moral values of other group members, trigger-
ing FOV. Examples such as the protest of Artin Penik, a
Turkish-Armenian who committed suicide by self-immola-
tion to protest a lethal attack against civilians by the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), a mili-
tant Armenian organization (Guntar, 1985), imply that FOV
can develop even when there are extreme power differences
between the conflicting groups. However, what combination
of factors enables the development of this possibly rare ori-
entation in the wake of group trauma—whether it is domi-
nant values and moral foundations in society, perceptions of
local compared with global justice, or a delicate balance
between victimizer and aggressor status within the collective
mind—remains to be explored.
Conclusion
Historical group trauma does not inevitably lead to the
development of orientations that exacerbate intergroup
conflict, such as a sense of ingroup victimhood. The two
opposing orientations presented in this research have con-
tradictory effects on group-based guilt, moral decision

Schori-Eyal et al. 15
making, readiness for intergroup reconciliation, attribution
of responsibility, and memory of harm to ingroup and out-
group members. By contributing to a better understanding
of the impact of historical group trauma, this research
points to complex patterns that emerge in the wake of col-
lective calamities.
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: This
research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science
Foundation to the second author, a grant and research prize from the
Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University,
and a scholarship from the Open University of Israel to the first
author. The preparation of this paper benefitted from discussions
within the COST Action IS1205 network on representations of his-
tory and social psychology.
Supplemental Material
The online supplemental material is available online.
Notes
1. No participants were excluded from analysis in this study or any
of the subsequent studies.
2. The study also included a manipulation of victimhood salience
(conducted through exposure to short texts describing multiple
historical ingroup traumas), but manipulation checks indicated
this manipulation to be ineffective and it was therefore not
included in the analyses.
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model iden-
tification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19,
716-723.
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of human prejudice. New York,
NY: Basic books. (Original work published 1954)
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg,
Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.”
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-
of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation model-
ing. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78-102.
Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating
historical injustices. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict:
The Israeli case. International Journal of Conflict Management,
9, 22-50.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Living with the conflict: Socio-psychological
analysis of the Jewish Society in Israel. Jerusalem, Israel:
Carmel Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Antebi, D. (1992). Siege mentality in Israel.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 251-275.
Bilali, R., Tropp, L. R., & Dasgupta, N. (2012). Attributions of
responsibility and perceived harm in the aftermath of mass vio-
lence. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18,
21-39.
Bishop, J., & Lane, R. C. (2000). Father absence and the attitude
of entitlement. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30,
105-117.
Canetti, D., Hobfoll, S., Pedhazur, A., & Zaidise, E. (2010). Much
ado about religion: Religiosity, resource loss, and support for
political violence. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 575-587.
Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human:
Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibil-
ity for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 804-818.
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A
scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Cooper, J., & Stone, J. (2004). Cognitive dissonance and the social
group. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior,
and social context: The role of norms and group membership
(pp. 227-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and
ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 60-67.
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing val-
ues back in the adequacy of the European Social Survey to
measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72,
420-445.
DiLillo, D. (2001). Interpersonal functioning among women report-
ing a history of childhood sexual abuse: Empirical findings and
methodological issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 553-576.
Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Attributions for the nega-
tive historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 33, 235-248.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R.
(1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a nega-
tive history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
872-886.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. J. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism,
social dominance orientation and the dimensions of general-
ized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113-130.
Dugas, M., Schori-Eyal, N., Kruglanski, A. W., Touchstone-
Leonard, K., McNeill, A., Gelfand, M. J., . . . Roccas, S. (in
press). The hurt justifies the means: Perceived ingroup victim-
hood and group glorification as motivated by cognitive need for
closure. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas:
Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict. American
Psychologist, 58, 182-192.
Eitam, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Motivation in mental accessi-
bility: Relevance of a Representation (ROAR) as a new frame-
work. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 951-967.
Figueiredo, A., Valentim, J., & Doosje, B. (2011). A shared past and
a common future: The Portuguese colonial war and the dynam-
ics of group-based guilt. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
14, 163-171.
Fitzgerald, M. F., Shipman, K. L., Jackson, J. L., McMahon, R.
J., & Hanley, H. M. (2005). Perceptions of parenting versus
parent-child interactions among incest survivors. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 29, 661-681.

16 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Flew, A. (Ed.). (1979). A dictionary of philosophy. London,
England: Pan Books in Association With the McMillan Press.
Froese, P., & Mencken, F. C. (2009). A U.S. holy war? The
effects of religion on Iraq War policy attitudes. Social Science
Quarterly, 90, 103-116.
Gilligan, C. (2003). Constant crisis/permanent process: Diminished
agency and weak structures in the Northern Ireland Peace
Process. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 3, 22-37.
Guntar, M. M. (1985). Transnational sources of support for
Armenian terrorism. Conflict Quarterly, 31-52. Retrieved
from http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/view-
File/14692/15761
Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we
practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of reli-
gious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14,
126-139.
Halperin, E., Cehajic, S., & Schori, N. (2011). Perpetual ingroup
victimhood orientation in Israel and in Serbia. (Unpublished
data).
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error?” A review
of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311-335.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
International Committee for the Red Cross. (2010). Summary report:
Afghanistan, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Georgia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia and the Philippines, Online
Survey and in-depth research, 2009. Geneva, Switzerland:
Author.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new
psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press.
Jin, J., & Rounds, J. (2012). Stability and change in work values:
A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 326-339.
Kimhi, S. (2014). Moral dilemma in the war against terror: Political
attitudes and regular versus reserve military service. Ethics &
Behavior, 24, 1-15.
Klar, Y. (2016). Four moral obligations in the aftermath of histori-
cal ingroup victimization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11,
54-58.
Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., & Klar, Y. (2013). The “never again”
state of Israel: The emergence of the Holocaust as a core fea-
ture of Israeli identity and its four incongruent voices. Journal
of Social Issues, 69, 125-143.
Licata, L., & Klein, O. (2010). Holocaust or Benevolent paternal-
ism? Intergenerational comparisons on collective memories
and emotions about Belgium’s Colonial Past. International
Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 45-57.
Lickel, B., Miller, N., Stenstrom, D. M., Denson, T. F., & Schmader,
T. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame
in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 372-390.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.
F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question,
weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
McDowell, S. (2007). Who are the victims? Debates, concepts
and contestation in “post-conflict” Northern Ireland. Conflict
Archive on the Internet. Retrieved from http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/
victims/introduction/smcd07whoarethevictims.html
McMullin, D., Wirth, R. J., & White, J. W. (2007). The impact of
sexual victimization on personality: A longitudinal study of
gendered attributes. Sex Roles, 56, 403-414.
Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing
history after genocide and mass violence. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Montville, J. V. (Ed.). (1990). Conflict and peacemaking in multi-
ethnic societies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Nadler, A. (2002). Social-psychological analysis of reconciliation:
Instrumental and socio-emotional routes to reconciliation.
Peace education worldwide: The concepts, underlying prin-
ciples, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nadler, A., & Saguy, T. (2003). Reconciliation between nations:
Overcoming emotional deterrents to ending conflicts between
groups. In H. Langholtz & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The psychology
of diplomacy (pp. 29-46). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Noor, M., Brown, R. J., & Prentice, G. (2008). Precursors and
mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A
new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481-495.
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When
suffering begets suffering the psychology of competitive
victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 351-374.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias.
In L. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.
17-59). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social
dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting
social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 741-763.
Pyszczynski, T., Abdollahi, A., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen,
F., & Weise, D. (2006). Mortality salience, martyrdom,
and military might: The great Satan versus the axis of evil.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 525-537.
Roccas, S., & Elster, A. (2012). Group identities. In L. A. Tropp
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 106-
122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2004). Exonerating cogni-
tions, group identification, and personal values as predictors of
collective guilt among Jewish-Israelis. In N. R. Branscombe &
B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives
(pp. 130-147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-
based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehe-
mence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698-711.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255-277.
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2013). Perceiving social inequity
when subordinate-group positioning on one dimension of
social hierarchy enhances privilege recognition on another.
Psychological Science, 24, 1420-1427.
Rotella, K. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2013). Motivated to “forget”: The
effects of in-group wrongdoing on memory and collective guilt.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 730-737.

Schori-Eyal et al. 17
Rozin, P., Haidt, J., & McCauley, C. R. (2008). Disgust. In M.
Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman (Eds.), Handbook
of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 757-776). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., & Hazan, O. (2012). Identification with
groups: The role of personality and context. Journal of
Personality, 80, 345-374.
Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011). To compete or to
cooperate? Values’ impact on perception and action in social
dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41,
64-77.
Schori-Eyal, N., Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2014). Three layers
of collective victimhood: Effects of multileveled victimhood
on intergroup conflicts in the Israeli–Arab context. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 44, 778-794.
Schori-Eyal, N., Klar, Y., & Ben-Ami, Y. (in press). Perpetual
ingroup victimhood as a distorted lens: Effects on attribution
and categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 coun-
tries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Sekerdej, M., & Roccas, S. (2016). Love versus loving criticism:
Disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 499-521.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup
theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Skarżyńska, K. (2012). Grupowa martyrologia: Psychologiczne
funkcje przekonań o narodowej krzywdzie [Group martyr-
dom: Psychological functional beliefs on national harm].
Psychologia Społeczna, 4, 335-352.
Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing or
intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psy-
chological recovery and steps toward a general theory. Political
Psychology, 27, 867-895.
Staub, E., & Pearlman, L. A. (2001). Healing, reconciliation and
forgiving after genocide and other collective violence. In S. J.
Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion: Religion, public policy and conflict transformation (pp.
205-229). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.
Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., Branscombe, N. R., & Rothschild, Z.
K. (2012). Competitive victimhood as a response to accusa-
tions of ingroup harm doing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 778-795.
Sverdlik, N., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Morality across cul-
tures: A values perspective. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes
of good and evil (pp. 219-235). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory
of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Cairns, E., Marinetti,
C., Geddes, L., & Parkinson, B. (2008). Postconflict reconcili-
ation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in Northern
Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 303-320.
Thompson, J., Morton, J., & Fraser, L. (1997). Memories for the
Marchioness. Memory, 5, 615-638.
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H.
(2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and
Decision Making, 4, 479-491.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision
making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values
on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 434-447.
Volkan, V. (1997). Blood lines: From ethnic pride to ethnic terror-
ism. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
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.
Vollhardt, J. R., & Bilali, R. (2015). The role of inclusive and
exclusive victim consciousness in predicting intergroup atti-
tudes: Findings from Rwanda, Burundi, and DRC. Political
Psychology, 36, 489-506.
Warner, R. H., & Branscombe, N. R. (2012). Observer percep-
tions of moral obligations in groups with a history of vic-
timization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38,
882-894.
Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts:
Suppression, obsession, and the psychology of mental control.
London, England: Guilford.
Wegner, D. M., & Schneider, D. J. (1989). Mental control: The war
of the ghosts in the machine. In J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.),
Unintended thought (pp. 287-305). New York, NY: Guilford
Press. (Reprinted from Introductory readings for cognitive psy-
chology, 3rd ed., by R. P. Honeck, Ed., 1995, Guilford, CT:
Dushkin)
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and
collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups
depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 288-303.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Remembering his-
torical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup trans-
gressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
988-1006.
Wohl, M. J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Group threat, collective
angst, and ingroup forgiveness for the war in Iraq. Political
Psychology, 30, 193-217.
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003).
I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification
on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, 533-549.
Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010).
Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98, 245-255.