Indonesian civilians’ attributions for anti-Chinese violence during the May 1998 riots in Indonesia

The present research examines the perceptions of Indonesian civilians regarding the May 1998 riots, which occurred at the end of the period of military dictatorship in Indonesia and included looting, rapes, and murders, disproportionately targeting Chinese Indonesians. Using a mixed methods approach, the research explores the intersectionality of ethnicity and gender as factors associated with perceptions of the extent and causes of the riots. It aims to contribute to the literature concerning the Ultimate Attribution Error, and to the psychology of intergroup relations in non-WEIRD contexts more broadly. An online survey with qualitative and quantitative components was administered to 235 participants (134 Pribumi and 101 Chinese Indonesian participants). The present research provides what may be the first documentation of civilian perceptions of the May 1998 riots. Significant differences consistent with the Ultimate Attribution Error were found between perpetrator and victim groups’ accounts. Participants who are Pribumi (the group involved in perpetrating the violence) attributed the causes of the violence to external factors more strongly, while participants who are Chinese Indonesians (the victim group) attributed the causes of the mass violence more strongly to the internal factors of perpetrators. There was no evidence, however, that gender affected perceptions, despite the gendered nature of the violence.

Making sense of the past to understand the present: Attributions for historical trauma predict contemporary social and political attitudes

Research indicates that the memory of collective trauma influences attitudes towards contemporary social and political issues. We suggest that the specific attributions for trauma that members of victim and perpetrator groups make provide a more nuanced understanding of this relationship. Thus, we constructed and validated a measure of attributions for the Holocaust. Then, we ran a preregistered study on representative samples in Germany ( N = 504) and Israel ( N = 469) to examine whether attributing the Holocaust to essentialist or contextual causes influences attitudes towards the immigration crisis and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Results indicated that, among Germans, attributing the Holocaust to German character was associated with positive attitudes to immigration via collective guilt. Among Israelis, attributions to German character were associated with negative attitudes to non-Jewish immigration, a hawkish stance in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, and pro-Israel attitudes via a sense of perpetual victimization. Results reveal how attributions about past trauma affect contemporary social and political attitudes among victims and perpetrators.

COVID-19-related conspiracy theories in China

Many COVID-19 conspiracy theories implicate China and its agents, whether implicitly or explicitly, as conspirators with potentially malicious intent behind the current pandemic. We set out to explore whether Chinese people believe in pandemic-related conspiracy theories, and if so, how do their secure (in-group identification) and defensive (collective narcissism) in-group positivity predict their conspiracy beliefs. We hypothesized that national identification would negatively predict the tendency to attribute responsibility to an in-group, thus predicting less risk-rejection conspiracy theory beliefs (e.g., COVID-19 is a hoax). In contrast, national collective narcissism would positively predict the tendency to attribute responsibility for the pandemic to an out-group, which in turn would validate conspiracy theories that acknowledge the risk of the pandemic (e.g., COVID-19 is a bioweapon). To test these predictions, we collected data in China ( n = 1,200) in April 2020. Supporting our predictions, national identification was negatively associated with risk-rejection conspiracy beliefs via in-group attribution, whereas national collective narcissism was positively associated with risk-acceptance conspiracy beliefs via out-group attribution.

Promoting reconciliation in separatist conflict: The effect of morality framing

In separatist conflict, the majority group and the separatist group alternate in their roles as victim and perpetrator. We examined how framing prior ingroup wrongdoings in terms of violations of moral ideals or violations of moral obligations affects the majority’s willingness to reconcile with the separatist group. We conducted a field experiment ( N = 208) in the Republic of Indonesia, where separatist conflict is rife. As expected, among members of the majority who were high in national identification, a moral ideals violation frame produced stronger positive intergroup orientations (e.g., perspective-taking, intergroup trust) and collective emotions of guilt and shame, whereas a moral obligations violation frame produced stronger positive intergroup orientations and collective emotions among low identifiers. In turn, positive intergroup orientations and collective emotions promoted reconciliatory attitudes (e.g., willingness to apologise, support for intergroup cooperation). These findings suggest that policymakers can gain a better insight into the effect of framing ingroup wrongdoings as violations of either moral ideals or moral obligations when taking national identification into account.

Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts

Individuals tend to present their own group (the ingroup) in a systematically more favourable way (ingroup bias). By examining socially negotiated and publicly accessible Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts, we investigated ingroup bias at a collective level. Specifically, we compared articles about the same intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Falklands War) in the corresponding language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., the Spanish and English Wikipedia articles about the Falklands War). Study 1 featured a content coding of translated Wikipedia articles by trained raters, which showed that articles systematically presented the ingroup in a more favourable way (e.g., Argentina in the Spanish article and the United Kingdom in the English article) and, in reverse, the outgroup as more immoral and more responsible for the conflict. These findings were replicated and extended in Study 2, which was limited to the lead sections of articles but included considerably more conflicts and many participants instead of a few trained coders. This procedure allowed for separate analyses for each conflict, which showed considerable variance in the results pattern with a stronger ingroup bias for (1) more recent conflicts and (2) conflicts in which the proportion of ingroup members among the top editors was larger. Finally, a third study ruled out that these effects were driven by translations or the raters' own nationality. Therefore, this paper is the first to demonstrate ingroup bias in Wikipedia - a finding that is of practical as well as theoretical relevance as we outline in the discussion.

Using Power as a Negative Cue: How Conspiracy Mentality Affects Epistemic Trust in Sources of Historical Knowledge

Classical theories of attitude change point to the positive effect of source expertise on perceived source credibility persuasion, but there is an ongoing societal debate on the increase in anti-elitist sentiments and conspiracy theories regarding the allegedly untrustworthy power elite. In one correlational ( N = 275) and three experimental studies ( N = 195, N = 464, N = 225), we tested the novel idea that people who endorse a conspiratorial mind-set (conspiracy mentality) indeed exhibit markedly different reactions to cues of epistemic authoritativeness than those who do not: Whereas the perceived credibility of powerful sources decreased with the recipients' conspiracy mentality, that of powerless sources increased independent of and incremental to other biases, such as the need to see the ingroup in particularly positive light. The discussion raises the question whether a certain extent of source-based bias is necessary for the social fabric of a highly complex society.

Perpetrating Violence Increases Identification With Violent Groups: Survey Evidence From Former Combatants

Heightened group identification motivates individuals to perpetrate violence, but can perpetrating violence-in and of itself-increase identification with violent groups? I test this idea using archival surveys of ex-combatants. In Liberia, where many combatants joined their violent group willingly, the data show a positive association between perpetrating violence and identification with one's violent group (Study 1). These results hold even when controlling for potentially confounding variables such as being abducted into the group versus joining willingly, length of time in the group, and personally experiencing violence. Study 2 replicates and extends this finding with data from ex-combatants in Uganda who were abducted into their group, using a natural experiment in which some abductees were forced to perpetrate violence whereas other abductees were not. These findings support a cycle of violence in which perpetrating violence increases identification with violent groups and heightened identification increases future violent behavior.

The Shadows of the Past

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.

Groups’ search for meaning: Redemption on the path to intergroup reconciliation

Four studies investigated the utility of finding meaning in past wrongdoing to promote intergroup reconciliation. Studies 1a, 1b, and 2 demonstrated that prompting members of perpetrator groups to engage in redemption narratives increases collective guilt and willingness to make reparations—both important in obtaining victims’ forgiveness. Further, Study 2 suggests that redemption narratives (but not sense-making) increase willingness to reconcile and reduce perceived justification. Study 3 suggests that perpetrators’ redemption, but not simply sense-making, narratives led victims to perceive greater change in the perpetrator group and increased victims’ willingness to reconcile, but not forgive. Taken together, the present work highlights the potential for redemption narratives to serve as an intervention for past intergroup conflict, increasing the chance for intergroup reconciliation.

Acknowledgment after mass violence: Effects on psychological well-being and intergroup relations

Four experiments in the context of the Armenian Genocide (Study 1), the Kielce Pogrom (Study 2), and the Holocaust (Studies 3 and 4) examined the effects of experiencing acknowledgment (vs. lack of acknowledgment) of historical ingroup victimization on psychological well-being and on intergroup relations. Armenian and Jewish American participants, respectively, read about the former perpetrator group’s acknowledgment or lack of acknowledgment of the ingroup’s victimization. Participants in the acknowledgment condition reported higher levels of psychological well-being (indicated by more positive and less negative affect) and greater willingness to reconcile with the former perpetrator group, compared to participants in the no acknowledgment condition and to a neutral baseline control condition (Study 4). Two studies also revealed significant effects on resentment of the perpetrator group.

Motivated to “Forget”

Reminders of in-group wrongdoing can prompt defensive responses that affect intergroup relations. Across two studies, American participants were randomly assigned to have their American identity increased (or not), then read a passage describing the negative treatment of Native American Indians by perpetrators described as either early Americans (i.e., in-group members) or European settlers (i.e., out-group members). Memory for the content of the passage and feelings of collective guilt were assessed. Participants demonstrated poorer memory when the perpetrators were framed as in-group (Americans), rather than out-group (Europeans), members. Further, participants in the in-group perpetrator condition whose American identification was primed experienced less collective guilt compared with participants in the in-group perpetrator condition whose American identification was not primed. Implications for intergroup relations and the understanding of collective memory are discussed.

The downsides of national identification for minority groups in intergroup conflicts in assimilationist societies

The current study considered the downsides of national identification for minority groups in intergroup conflicts in assimilationist societies. This study examined how, in the Turkish national context, the national and ethnic identifications of ethnic Turks (N = 103) and ethnic Kurds (N = 58) predict construals (i.e., conflict frames, attributions of responsibility, and severity of harm) of Turkish-Kurdish conflict. The results indicated that, across groups, a shared national identification was associated with similar conflict construals in line with the official Turkish narrative, whereas ethnic identification was associated with opposing conflict construals that might help maintain the conflict. However, the conflict narrative related to national identification might produce a shared understanding of the conflict (i.e., more intergroup harmony) at the cost of neglecting the minority group's grievances in the conflict and legitimizing the status-quo, thus hindering efforts to enhance the minority group's disadvantaged status.