Identity centrality and in-group superiority differentially predict reactions to historical victimization and harm doing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Two U.S. studies report a differential effect of identity centrality and in-group superiority on reactions to in-group victimization and in-group harm-doing. Study 1 (N = 80) found that higher identity centrality predicted less justification for freely-recalled in-group victim events, whereas higher in-group superiority predicted more justification for freely-recalled in-group harm-doing events. Study 2 (N = 105) reexamined these findings in specific contexts of historical victimization (Pearl Harbor) and harm-doing (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), finding that in-group superiority was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group harm-doing (justification, emotional reactions, importance of events), whereas centrality was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group victimization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)322-338
Number of pages17
JournalInternational Journal of Conflict and Violence
Volume6
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

victimization
Group
event
harbor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{ceb9f6db372640978114c6b84b66469e,
title = "Identity centrality and in-group superiority differentially predict reactions to historical victimization and harm doing",
abstract = "Two U.S. studies report a differential effect of identity centrality and in-group superiority on reactions to in-group victimization and in-group harm-doing. Study 1 (N = 80) found that higher identity centrality predicted less justification for freely-recalled in-group victim events, whereas higher in-group superiority predicted more justification for freely-recalled in-group harm-doing events. Study 2 (N = 105) reexamined these findings in specific contexts of historical victimization (Pearl Harbor) and harm-doing (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), finding that in-group superiority was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group harm-doing (justification, emotional reactions, importance of events), whereas centrality was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group victimization.",
author = "Rezarta Bilali",
year = "2012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "322--338",
journal = "International Journal of Conflict and Violence",
issn = "1864-1385",
publisher = "University of Bielefeld",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identity centrality and in-group superiority differentially predict reactions to historical victimization and harm doing

AU - Bilali, Rezarta

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Two U.S. studies report a differential effect of identity centrality and in-group superiority on reactions to in-group victimization and in-group harm-doing. Study 1 (N = 80) found that higher identity centrality predicted less justification for freely-recalled in-group victim events, whereas higher in-group superiority predicted more justification for freely-recalled in-group harm-doing events. Study 2 (N = 105) reexamined these findings in specific contexts of historical victimization (Pearl Harbor) and harm-doing (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), finding that in-group superiority was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group harm-doing (justification, emotional reactions, importance of events), whereas centrality was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group victimization.

AB - Two U.S. studies report a differential effect of identity centrality and in-group superiority on reactions to in-group victimization and in-group harm-doing. Study 1 (N = 80) found that higher identity centrality predicted less justification for freely-recalled in-group victim events, whereas higher in-group superiority predicted more justification for freely-recalled in-group harm-doing events. Study 2 (N = 105) reexamined these findings in specific contexts of historical victimization (Pearl Harbor) and harm-doing (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), finding that in-group superiority was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group harm-doing (justification, emotional reactions, importance of events), whereas centrality was a predictor of reactions to historical in-group victimization.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871562367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871562367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84871562367

VL - 6

SP - 322

EP - 338

JO - International Journal of Conflict and Violence

JF - International Journal of Conflict and Violence

SN - 1864-1385

IS - 2

ER -