Content uploaded by Boaz Hameiri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Boaz Hameiri on May 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Title: Encountering the suffering of the other: Reconciliation studies amid the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict
Editors: Francesco Ferrari, Martin Leiner, Zeina M. Barakat, Michael Sternberg, Boaz
Hameiri
Publisher: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Place, Year: Göttingen, 2023
9. Boaz Hameiri, Rahav Gabay, Tammy Rubel-Lifschitz, Arie Nadler
Victimhood Acknowledgment as a Vehicle to Promote Intergroup Conciliatory
Attitudes in the Context of Intergroup Conflict
ABSTRACT
Boaz Hameiri, Rahav Gabay, Tammy Rubel-Lifschitz, and Arie Nadler’s paper on
Victimhood Acknowledgment as a Vehicle to Promote Intergroup Conciliatory Attitudes in a
Context of Intergroup Conflict focuses on the consequences of denying and acknowledging
victimhood. Although acknowledging victimhood in contexts of historical mass victimization
may trigger positive effects on victims’ well-being and willingness to reconcile with their
former tormentors, its denial can be experienced, conversely, as a revictimization. The
chapter is based on research conducted in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Two large-
scale surveys and three field experiments examine the effects of the belief by group
members that their adversary acknowledges their victimhood (Holocaust and Nakba for
Jews and Palestinians, respectively). This belief is associated with Israeli-Jews’ readiness
to accept responsibility for Palestinian sufferings and offer apologies. For Palestinians, it is
also linked to a perceived higher likelihood of a reconciled future with Israelis.
1. INTRODUCTION
Members of groups immersed in intractable conflicts perceive them as existential and
insoluble (Bar-Tal 2013). Such conflicts often resist resolution because of psychological
barriers that block the path to achieving a compromise on issues that separate the two
parties (e.g., division of disputed land). Among these emotional barriers are a lack of trust,
the fear of being blamed as the author of immoral acts, and the victims’ desire to avenge
past victimization (Nadler 2012). Furthermore, in intractable conflicts, a sense of collective
victimhood is an inseparable part of the shared collective memory of the conflict and the
ethos of conflict (Bar-Tal 2013). The study we conducted as part of the “Hearts of Flesh–
Not Stone” project focuses on how the acknowledgement of the in-group’s victimhood by
the adversary ameliorates the negative consequences of competitive victimhood (Noor et
al. 2012). We examined this issue within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one
of the most intractable conflicts. Despite the enormous cost in human life, economic
resources, and psychological traumas for both sides, has defied resolution for more than a
century.
Being a victim of violence is a negative psychological experience. It results in an
increased sense of humiliation, fear, anger, hopelessness, and a desire for revenge (Skitka,
Bauman, and Mullen 2004). Being a victim is a source of identity threat, as it portrays victims
as powerless with no control over their fate (Shnabel and Nadler 2008). This conglomerate
of affective, cognitive, and motivational reactions associated with victimhood constitutes a
significant psychological barrier to ending the conflict (Noor et al., 2012). Despite the
detrimental consequences of victimhood for intergroup relations, being a victim is associated
with psychological benefits, such as garnering support from third parties. Indeed, groups
compete with each other over which is the “true victim” (Noor et al. 2012). This competitive
victimhood is documented in several conflictual contexts. It has dominated relations between
Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (Noor, Brown and Prentice 2008), Serbs and
Croats in former Yugoslavia (Andrighetto et al. 2012), and Israelis and Palestinians in the
Middle East (Shnabel, Halabi and Noor 2013). Besides, competitive victimhood is
associated with belligerent attitudes towards the adversary, such as the lack of trust or the
unwillingness to forgive (Noor et al. 2012). Considering the motivation of the adversarial
groups to “win” the competition for victimhood, a proclamation by a reputable third party,
such as the UN, that one group has suffered more than its adversary increases the readiness
to reconcile (Siman-Tov Nachlieli, Shnabel, and Halabi 2015).
The group’s victimization is a central element of the narrative about the causes of the
conflict and its progression that serves as a major building block of the group’s collective
identity (Paez and Liu 2011). Frequently, an instance of past victimization is the nucleus of
the story that the group tells its members about the roots of the conflict and conditions for
its resolution. Moreover, past victimization becomes the group’s “chosen trauma” that affects
the course of the conflict and the likelihood of its resolution (Volkan 2006). The Jewish
Holocaust and the Palestinian Nakba, i.e., the Palestinians’ belief that the establishment of
Israel turned them into refugees, are two of these “chosen traumas” that play a central role
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israelis’ preoccupation with security concerns and fears of
annihilation can be traced to centuries of discrimination, persecution, and pogroms,
culminating in the Holocaust (e.g., Klar, Schori-Eyal, and Klar 2013). The Palestinians’
desire to redeem their people from the status of stateless refugees refers to the
establishment of Israel in 1948 (Auerbach 2009). Although the group’s adherence to its
victim identity can have positive consequences for the group, such as a sense of entitlement,
it is detrimental to intergroup relations (Noor et al., 2012). For example, reminding Canadian
Jews of the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust reduced their concern for the moral
implications of actions committed by Israelis against Palestinians (Wohl and Branscombe
2008).
Social psychological research and theory suggest three mechanisms that may reduce the
negative impact of group adherence to their victim identity on intergroup relations. The first
mechanism rests on the assumption of the needs-based model of reconciliation (Nadler and
Shnabel 2008) and consists of restoring the victim’s sense of power. This process has been
shown to increase trust in the adversary by members of victimized groups (Shnabel, Nadler,
and Dovidio 2014) and readiness to reconcile with the opponent (Shnabel et al. 2009). The
second mechanism focuses on inducing group members to view both the in-group and the
adversarial out-group as victims (Shnabel et al., 2013). This inclusive common victim identity
results in more positive intergroup perceptions and less competitive victimhood (Vollhardt
and Bilali 2015). The third mechanism emphasizes the acknowledgement of the in-group’s
victimhood. We assessed this mechanism in our conducted study as part of the “Hearts of
Flesh–Not Stone” project.
Works on the effects of acknowledgment of victimhood in intergroup relations support
the claim of its ameliorative effects on the well-being of victims. Acknowledgment of the
sufferings of victims in Chechnya had positive effects on their psychological well-being
(Maercker et al. 2009), and acknowledgment of the suffering of political prisoners was
positively related to their reduced desire to take revenge on their tormentors (David and Choi
2009). In an experiment conducted in Belgium, attitudes towards the French-speaking
community improved when they acknowledged the Dutch-speaking community’s past
sufferings (Alarcón-Henríquez et al. 2010). Similarly, individuals of Armenian descent who
were exposed to the recognition of the Armenian genocide by Turkish groups, and Jewish
students who experienced the acknowledgment of violence against Jews by Poles and
Germans evidenced more conciliatory attitudes towards their former tormentors (Vollhardt,
Mazur, and Lemahieu 2014). The denial of an in-group’s victimhood, especially when it
reflects on the group’s “chosen trauma,” is tantamount to questioning its collective identity
and is experienced as a re-victimization. Thus, the denial of the Armenian genocide elicits
feelings of resentment, hatred, and anger among Armenian survivors (Kalayjian et al. 1996).
Our study examines whether the positive effects of acknowledgment of an in-group’s
victimhood by the adversarial group would impact people’s readiness to make compromises
on central issues that have been on the negotiating table between Israelis and Palestinians,
such as the final status of Jerusalem or the evacuation of settlements in the West Bank. This
idea departs from previous studies investigating the links between acknowledgment of
victimhood and intergroup relations in at least three respects. First, the examination focuses
on the effects of acknowledgment within the context of a “hot” conflict that has defied
resolution for decades. Second, the studies analyze the effects of acknowledgment on the
willingness to compromise on specific conflict-related issues rather than on the victims’ well-
being or general positive attitudes towards the adversary. Third, intense feelings of
competitive victimhood characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Nadler 2002). This
instance is not the case for the Jewish-German or Armenian-Turkish relations where a
relative consensus on the identity of the victims exists. This point is particularly important
because competitive victimhood not only leads each party to pay exclusive attention to their
own sufferings but also to minimize, or even deny, the adversary’s victimhood (Vollhardt
2009). This development can be seen in the recurring attempts by Palestinians to belittle or
deny the Jewish Holocaust and by Israelis to minimize or doubt the sufferings of Palestinians
since 1948. This reality has contributed to the distrust and animosity that have characterized
the relations between these two peoples. Moreover, the tensions have also been expressed
in parties’ unwillingness to make concessions to each other on critical issues, which could
have facilitated a movement forward.
Current research indicates that a strong sense of collective victimhood is negatively
associated with intergroup trust (Andrighetto et al., 2012; Noor, Brown and Prentice, 2008)
and a decreased readiness for intergroup forgiveness (Noor, Brown and Prentice, 2008).
Distrust in one’s adversary also decreases the willingness to compromise to promote an end
to the conflict. In situations in which the adversary cannot be trusted, making political
compromises may seem to be a risk to the in-group’s safety. In a study conducted on the
context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jewish-Israelis who showed a stronger sense of
collective victimhood were less willing to support compromises to end the conflict (Schori-
Eyal, Halperin, and Bar-Tal 2014). Our study examines whether these negative trends can
be reversed through the reciprocal acknowledgement by Israelis and Palestinians of the
other’s “chosen traumas,” such as acknowledging the Jewish Holocaust by Palestinians and
the Nakba-related sufferings by Israeli-Jews. Besides, we analyze whether this recognition
affects the readiness to make compromises on key divisive issues.
2. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
In order to examine the link between the perceived acknowledgment by the adversarial out-
group of the in-group’s trauma and the readiness to reconcile with them, Hameiri and Nadler
2017 first conducted two surveys among Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians who live in the
West Bank. Within a representative sample of Jewish-Israelis, the extent to which
participants perceived that Palestinians acknowledge the Jewish Holocaust was associated
with a greater readiness to recognize the Palestinians’ suffering and an increasing
willingness to take responsibility and apologize for it. These relationships between the main
variables were similar for Israeli-Jews and Palestinians, particularly in a large sample of
Palestinians living in the West Bank. The perceived acknowledgment of the in-group’s
victimhood was positively related to the in-group’s readiness to acknowledge the adversary’s
victimhood and a conciliatory attitude towards them.
The correlational nature of these findings does not reveal that the perceived
acknowledgement of the in-group’s trauma by the “enemy” in a protracted conflict facilitates
the end of the conflict. Group members who had conciliatory attitudes may be more willing
to recognize the victimhood of the enemy and believe that the enemy acknowledged theirs
in turn. Thus, to examine the hypothesis that acknowledging the in-group’s victimhood by
the enemy causes greater willingness to make compromises on key divisive issues and take
a conciliatory orientation towards one’s adversary, we conducted three field experiments:
two with Jewish-Israeli participants and one with Palestinian citizens of Israel. These
experiments also allowed us to examine the psychological mechanisms that drive these
effects.
In the first field study, we found that manipulated acknowledgment of victimhood led
Jewish-Israelis to express more trust toward Palestinians, and, most importantly, more
willingness to take responsibility, apologize and make political concessions to promote a
peaceful resolution of the conflict. The mediation analysis suggests that the manipulated
high levels of acknowledgment (vs. low acknowledgment) led to more trust in Palestinians,
which in turn led to more positive conciliatory attitudes. In the second field study, the results
generally replicated the pattern of the first one. High levels of acknowledgment (vs. low
acknowledgment) by Israeli-Jews of Palestinians’ sufferings led the Palestinian participants
to express more trust in Israeli-Jews, adopt more positive conciliatory attitudes towards
them, and led to a higher willingness to endorse political concessions to promote peaceful
conflict resolution. The mediation analyses also indicate that trust only played a mediating
role when the dependent variable focused on the conciliatory attitudes toward Jewish-
Israelis but not when it was associated with the participants’ willingness to make
compromises.
The final study aimed to replicate the previous findings and shed light on the
psychological mechanisms potentially accounting for the link between the acknowledging
victimhood, the readiness to compromise, and adopting conciliatory attitudes in “hot”
conflicts. Because this study was conducted in early 2016, when violence peaked in Israeli-
Palestinian relations, we were only able to recruit Israeli-Jews. This study also included a
control group that read a story that focused on the Holocaust but did not imply anything
about the level of its recognition by Palestinians. This process allowed us to assess the
effects of high vs. low acknowledgment against a comparable baseline. Finally, the study
assessed the role of four conceptually relevant variables as psychological mechanisms,
namely trust, collective victim identity, need for acceptance of the in-group, and reciprocity,
to explain the effects of acknowledgment on concession-making, taking responsibility for the
adversary’s sufferings, and the act of an apology.
The results replicated the main findings of the two previous studies. Compared to the
low acknowledgment and the control group, Israeli-Jews who had been exposed to a high
level of victimhood acknowledgment by Palestinians evidenced greater willingness to
compromise, take responsibility for causing suffering to the Palestinians, and apologize for
it. This effect was mediated by decreased adherence to collective victim identity, a lower
need for acceptance, and a higher need to reciprocate. Unlike the previous studies, there
were no effects on trust in the Palestinian group, potentially caused by a floor effect. With
regard to the second mediator, i.e., the degree to which group members regard their group’s
past victimization as a central element in their collective victim identity (Klar, Schori-Eyal
and Klar 2013), protracted and violent conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are
dominated by feelings and perceptions of competitive victimhood, which emphasize the
state of being a victim and become a central element in the group’s identity (Noor et al.
2012). This centrality of victimhood leads to perceiving the adversary as a source of potential
re-victimization and results in the adopting of a cautious and unyielding stance in relations
with them. The opponent’s acknowledgement of the group’s victimhood implied that
competitive victimhood no longer dominated. Lowering the centrality of the in-group’s
victimhood also led to a more conciliatory orientation and greater willingness to make
concessions on divisive issues.
The third mediator, i.e., the participants’ need for acceptance, was vital in the present
study with Israeli-Jews, participants, who, like many other Israeli-Jew frequently experience
threats concerning their moral image since Israel is often perceived as the perpetrator of
immoral behavior towards the Palestinians (Shnabel et al. 2009). According to the needs-
based model and related research, the threat to moral image results in the group’s need to
be accepted by out-groups, which discourages reconciliation until the need is met (Shnabel
and Nadler 2015). The acknowledgment of the Jewish Holocaust by the Palestinians implied
that the participants understood, however conditionally and tentatively, that Jewish history
compels Israelis to be overly vigilant, which may lead them to implement immoral policies.
This process reduced the threat to Israelis’ moral image and, concomitantly, the need for
acceptance from other groups, i.e., the world community. Studies have shown that
satisfaction with the need for acceptance of the perpetrator increases the readiness to
reconcile (Nadler and Shnabel 2015).
Similarly, Israelis the lower need for acceptance mediated their willingness to make
concessions in the present study. The fourth mediator was participants’ need to reciprocate
the acknowledgment of their collective victimhood by adopting a conciliatory orientation.
Since we could not directly ask the participants whether the acknowledging of their
victimhood should be reciprocated by making concessions, we assessed variations in the
need for exchange. Specifically, we asked them if they thought that an acknowledgment of
their group’s victimhood needed to be reciprocated by the acknowledgment of the
Palestinian suffering and found that this was indeed the case.
3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Overall, these findings suggest that acknowledgment of the in-group’s victimhood by the
adversary has positive effects on intergroup relations. The two surveys conducted in Israel
and the Palestinian Authority indicate that the perception by Israeli-Jews of Palestinians who
acknowledge the Holocaust as a major victimizing event for the Jewish people was related
to their acknowledgement of Palestinian suffering and the willingness to take responsibility,
and apologize for it. In the same vein, the Palestinian perception of Israeli-Jews who
acknowledge Palestinian Nakba-related sufferings was related to their readiness to
recognize the Jewish Holocaust and their belief in the possibility of a reconciled future with
the Israelis. Three subsequent field experiments substantiated the causal link between the
acknowledgement of the in-group’s victimhood, the readiness to compromise on divisive
issues, and the adoption of conciliatory attitudes towards the adversary. These experiments
also examined the mediators of these links.
The mediational analysis in the final study suggested that the effects of
acknowledgment of victimhood on concession-making and conciliatory orientation reflect the
workings of (a) identity-related and (b) relationship-related psychological mechanisms. A
threat to moral identity is likely to have led the Israeli-Jewish participants to embrace
collective victimhood with its associated feelings of entitlement, whereas the
acknowledgement of victimhood diminished this threat and the associated need for
acceptance by others. This progress lessened the need to embrace a collective victim
identity. Consistent with the needs-based model of reconciliation (Nadler and Shnabel 2015)
and work on collective victimhood (Noor et al. 2012), these identity-related changes
increased the readiness to reconcile by taking the “first step” forward, i.e., offering
concessions and adopting a conciliatory orientation. Apart from acknowledging victimhood,
the participants perceived that the adversary made a positive gesture towards the in-group,
which impacted their readiness to reciprocate and increased their trust in the other side.
These relationship-related variables mediated the effects of acknowledging of the Jewish
Holocaust on concession-making and conciliatory orientation. However, due to deficient
intergroup trust stemming from violence on the ground, this effect did not play a similar role
in the final study.
These dual identity-related and relationship-related mediational paths are likely to be
operative in protracted and violent conflicts. Such conflicts generate threats to group
identities and are associated with much intergroup distrust and animosity (cf. Nadler 2012
for a similar distinction between socio-emotional and instrumental processes of
reconciliation). The relative salience of each of these paths in mediating the effects of
acknowledgment is likely to be determined situationally. Compared to protracted and violent
conflicts and therefore associated with threats to collective identities, the mediating role of
identity-related aspects is expected to be smaller than in shorter and less violent conflicts.
Additionally, when the source of acknowledgment is a third party (e.g., when the UN
recognizes Israeli or Palestinian victimhood), the mediating role of relationship-related
aspects in explaining the effects of acknowledgment is anticipated to be lower than when
the source is one’s adversary. These and related questions await the scrutiny of further
research.
The research we conducted as part of the “Hearts of Flesh–Not Stone” project is
unique on several levels. First, it examines the effects of acknowledgment of victimhood on
the victimized group instead of the perpetrating group’s willingness to acknowledge their
adversary’s victimhood, the associated collective guilt, and conciliatory orientations (as did
Čehajić and Brown 2010) within the context of an ongoing, protracted and violent conflict.
Second, this method extends the examination of the effects of acknowledgment beyond the
commonly used attitudinal and perceptual measures employed in previous research, which
has focused on conflicts that have long ended, to examine the readiness to make actual
concessions that can break the cycle of violence in an ongoing protracted conflict. This focus
highlights the applied implications of the current research. In conflicts where the belittling or
denial of the other’s victimhood may be prevalent, their recognition by the adversary, even
if not caused by them, may be an essential step forward. Gubler, Halperin, and Hirschberger
(2015) study, which found that Israelis who read a message written by a Palestinian who
acknowledged the Holocaust evidenced empathy towards their Palestinian adversary,
supports this argument. As studies on competitive victimhood (Noor et al. 2012) and moral
disengagement (Bandura 1999) have shown, feelings of empathy toward one’s adversary
are a vital step toward ending the conflict. Finally, research on victimhood acknowledgment
is in its initial stage, and the interwoven psychological process still needs to be identified.
Although victimhood acknowledgment by adversaries seems a promising and even
necessary route to promote positive relations, conflict resolution, and reconciliation, it rarely
happens (e.g., Kapshuk, present volume). Such acknowledgment, for example, may be
perceived as hindering the in-group’s campaign to garner support from third parties (Noor
et al., 2012). In cases in which an out-group was victimized by one’s in-group, the reluctance
to acknowledge the other’s victimhood may stem from the need to maintain a positive social
identity, whether by belittling the other’s victimhood or minimizing one’s culpability for it
(Leiner et al. 2010). One promising approach for addressing this low willingness to
acknowledge the adversary’s victimhood is intergroup and particularly intragroup dialogue.
Such dialogue was found to lead to positive effects on various conflict-related outcomes,
including, expression of empathy toward the Palestinian narrative among Jewish-Israelis
(Ben David et al., 2017; Sternberg, present volume; Zigenlaub, present volume).
A relevant field for future research should examine the effects of acknowledging
victimhood by a third party. If the effects of acknowledgment are due to an increase in the
victim’s conception of feeling morally superior to the adversary, acknowledgment by a third
party (e.g., the UN) should have similar, if not stronger, ameliorative effects as an
acknowledgment by the adversary. However, if the positive effects of acceptance are
attributable to the implication that the enemy legitimizes the in-group’s identity, an
acknowledgment from a third party should have lesser, if any, ameliorative effects. Another
branch for future research concerns the different meanings acknowledgment of victimhood
has for the more and less powerful in the conflict. Consistent with the logic of the needs-
based model (Shnabel and Nadler 2008), acknowledgement means that the injustice done
to the weaker party is recognized and needs to be rectified; whereas for the more powerful
party, acknowledgment means that since they are perceived as victims, they are exonerated
from being portrayed as evil perpetrators. The finding that Israelis’ need for acceptance of
Israel by the world community was weaker in high acknowledgment conditions than in low
acknowledgment conditions supports this reasoning (Hameiri and Nadler 2017).
Hence, the most important implication of this study is that the first step to intergroup
reconciliation is the acknowledgment of the adversary’s victimhood. Adversarial groups not
only deny their responsibility for the out-group’s sufferings, but forces of competitive
victimhood led them to deny or belittle the significance of these sufferings. When collective
victimhood is a crucial component of the group’s self-perception and relations with out-
groups (i.e., the “chosen trauma”), denial equals invalidating the group’s identity. This denial
of victimhood negatively influences on intergroup relations, even after the conflict has ended,
and is particularly destructive in ongoing conflicts. As the present findings indicate, under
these circumstances, the denial of the in-group’s victimhood leads to intransigent positions
on divisive issues that threaten to turn the conflict into a protracted one. Acknowledging the
adversary’s “chosen trauma” lowers in-group members’ defenses against future re-
victimization and encourages compromises on divisive issues and a more conciliatory and
hopeful view of their relations with the adversary than if such an acknowledgment is
withheld. By studying the effects of acknowledgment of victimhood in the context of the
protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the present study illustrated these processes. The
question as to whether these findings are unique to such contexts where parties deny each
other’s “chosen trauma” or are also manifested in other kinds of intergroup conflicts should
be further examined in future research.
REFERENCES
Alarcón-Henríquez, A., Licata, L., Leys, C., Van der Linden, N., Klein, O., Mercy, A. 2010,
‘Recognition of Shared Past Sufferings, Trust and Improving Intergroup Attitudes in
Belgium’, Revista de Psicología, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 81-110.
Andrighetto, L., Mari, S., Volpato, C., Behluli, B. 2012, ‘Reducing Competitive Victimhood in
Kosovo. The Role of Extended Contact and Common Ingroup Identity’, Political
Psychology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 513-529.
Auerbach Y. 2009, ‘The Reconciliation Pyramid. A Narrative-Based Framework for
Analyzing Identity Conflicts’, Political Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 291-318.
Bandura, A.1999, ‘Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities”, Personality
and Social Psychology Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 193-209.
Bar-Tal, D. 2013, Intractable Conflicts. Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Ben David, Y., Hameiri, B., Benheim, S., Leshem, B., Sarid, A, Sternberg, M., Nadler, A.,
Sagy, S. 2017, ‘Exploring Ourselves within Intergroup Conflict. The Role of Intragroup
Dialogue in Promoting Acceptance of Collective Narratives and Willingness Toward
Reconciliation’, Peace and Conflict. Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
269-277.
Čehajić, S., Brown, R. 2010, ‘Silencing the Past. Effects of Intergroup Contact on
Acknowledgment of In-Group Responsibility’, Social Psychological and Personality
Science, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 190-196.
David, R., Choi, S.Y.P. 2009, ‘Getting Even or Getting Equal? Retributive Desires and
Transnational Justice’, Political Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 161-192.
Gubler, J.R., Halperin, E., Hirschberger, G. 2015, ‘Humanizing the Outgroup in Contexts of
Protracted Intergroup Conflict’, Journal of Experimental Political Science, vol. 2, no.
1, pp. 36-46.
Hameiri, B., Nadler, A. 2017, ‘Looking Backward to Move Forward. Effects of
Acknowledgment of Victimhood on Readiness to Compromise for Peace in the
Protracted Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 555-569.
Kalayjian, A.S., Shahinian, S.P., Gergerian, E.L., Saraydarian, L. 1996, ‘Coping with
Ottoman Turkish Genocide. An Exploration of the Experience of Armenian Survivors’,
Journal of Traumatic Stress, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 87-97.
Kapshuk, Y. 2022, ‘Reconciliation in Peace Agreements? The Case Study of the Israeli-
Palestinian Peace Process’, present volume.
Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., and Klar, Y. 2013, ‘The ‘Never Again’ State of Israel. The
Emergence of the Holocaust as a Core Feature of Israeli Identity and its Four
Incongruent Voices’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 125-143.
Leidner, B., Castano, E., Zaiser, E., Giner-Sorolla, R. 2010, ‘Ingroup Glorification, Moral
Disengagement, and Justice in the Context of Collective Violence”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1115-1129.
Maercker, A., Povilonyte, M., Lianova, R., Pöhlmann, K. 2009, “Is Acknowledgement of
Trauma a Protective Factor? The Sample Case of Refugees from Chechnya”,
European Psychologist, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 249-254.
Nadler, A. 2012, ‘Intergroup Reconciliation. Definitions, Processes, and Future Directions’,
in The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, ed L.R. Tropp, Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 291-309.
Nadler, A. 2002, ‘Post-Resolution Processes. Instrumental and Socioemotional Routes to
Reconciliation’, in Peace Education. The Concept, Principles, and Practices Around
the World, eds G. Salomon, B. Nevo, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (NJ), pp. 127-144.
Nadler, A., Shnabel, N. 2015, ‘Intergroup Reconciliation. Definitions, Instrumental and
Socio-Emotional Processes, and the Needs-Based Model’, European Review of
Social Psychology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 93-125.
Nadler, A., Shnabel, N. 2008, ‘Instrumental and Socioemotional Paths to Intergroup
Reconciliation and the Needs-Based Model of Socioemotional Reconciliation’, in
Social Psychology of Inter-Group Reconciliation, eds A. Nadler, T. Maloy, J.D. Fisher,
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 37-56.
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, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 351-374.
Noor, M., Brown, R., Prentice, G. 2008, ’Precursors and Mediators of Inter-Group
Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. A New Model’, British Journal of Social
Psychology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 481-495.
Paez, D., Liu, J.H. 2011, ’Collective Memory of Conflicts’, in Intergroup Conflicts and Their
Resolution. A Social Psychological Perspective, ed D. Bar-Tal, Psychology
Press, New York, pp. 105-124.
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, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 778-794.
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., Noor, M. 2013, ‘Overcoming Competitive Victimhood and
Facilitating Forgiveness through Re-Categorization into a Common Victim or
Perpetrator Identity’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 49, no. 5, pp.
867-877.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A. 2015, ‘The Role of Agency and Morality in Reconciliation Processes.
The Perspective of the Needs-Based Model’, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 477-483.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A. 2008, ‘A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation. Satisfying the
Differential Emotional Needs of Victim and Perpetrator as a Key to Promoting
Reconciliation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 116-
132.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J.F., Carmi, D. 2009, ‘Promoting Reconciliation
through the Satisfaction of the Emotional Needs of Victimized and Perpetrating Group
Members. The Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation’, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1021-1030.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Dovidio, J.F. 2014, ‘Beyond Need Satisfaction. Empowering and
Accepting Messages from Third Parties Ineffectively Restore Trust and Consequent
Reconciliation’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 126-140.
Siman-Tov Nachlieli, I., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S. 2015, ‘Winning the Victim Status Can Open
Conflicting Groups to Reconciliation. Evidence from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 139-145.
Skitka, L.J., Bauman, C.W., Mullen, E. 2004, ‘Political Tolerance and Coming to
Psychological Closure Following the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks. An
Integrative Approach’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 6, pp.
743-756.
Sternberg, M. 2022, ‘When Israeli Students Encounter Palestinian Narratives’, present
volume.
Volkan, V. 2006, Killing in the Name of Identity. A Study of Bloody Conflicts, Pitchstone,
Charlottesville (VA).
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, vol. 15, no.
2, pp. 135-159.
Vollhardt, J.R., Bilali, R. 2015, ‘The Role of Inclusive and Exclusive Victim Consciousness
in Predicting Intergroup Attitudes. Findings from Rwanda, Burundi, and DRC’,
Political Psychology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 489-506.
Vollhardt, J.R., Mazur, L.B., Lemahieu, M. 2014, “Acknowledgment After Mass Violence:
Effects on Psychological Well-Being and Intergroup Relations’, Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 306-323.
Wohl, M.J.A, Branscombe, N.R. 2008, ‘Remembering Historical Victimization. Collective
Guilt for Current In-Group Transgression’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 988-1006.
Zigenlaub, E. ‘Learning the Narrative of the Other. What Type of Encounter is More
Effective?’ 2022, present volume.