Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:36:35.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Evocation of Moral Emotions in Intergroup Contexts: The Distinction Between Collective Guilt and Collective Shame

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2012

Brian Lickel
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Toni Schmader
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Marchelle Barquissau
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Nyla R. Branscombe
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bertjan Doosje
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Conflict, in many cases extending to war, genocide, enslavement, and other forms of violence and domination, is the unfortunate hallmark of much of intergroup relations. Nonetheless, though humans tend to view even the most violent acts of their group against outsiders as morally justified, there are exceptions. Some individuals, in some situations, experience compunction for what people in their group have done to outsiders. Understanding when such reactions are likely to occur, and the consequences of such responses, is a potentially crucial element in attenuating intergroup conflict.

Our interest in understanding collective guilt concerns when individuals will take responsibility for and make reparations for their group's mistreatment of another group. It is important to recognize that the word “guilt” can be used to refer to both an emotional response (“I feel guilty”) and a judgment of responsibility (“I am guilty”). Obviously, the two usages are related, however, our work is derived from a conceptualization of guilt first and foremost as an emotional experience. As such, our approach is grounded in basic research on emotion and strives to describe the interpretative process by which a person proceeds from a simple awareness that a negative intergroup event has taken place to having an emotional reaction and a behavioral response to that event.

Our primary objective in this chapter is to outline some of the main steps in this interpretive process.

Type
Chapter
Information
Collective Guilt
International Perspectives
, pp. 35 - 55
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Barrett, H. C. (in press). On the functional origins of essentialism. Mind and Society, 3, 1–30Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation: Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 523–423.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, C. (1984). Blood revenge: The anthropology of feuding in Montenegro and other tribal societies. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press
Branscombe, N. R., Doosje, B., & McGarty, C. (2002) Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 49–66). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press
Daley, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: De Gruyter
Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellemers, N., Kortekass, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–893.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil-White, F. J. (2001). Are ethnic groups biological “species” to the human brain?: Essentialism in our cognition of some social categories. Current Anthropology, 42, 515–54Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Castelli, L. (2002). A group by any other name – The role of entitativity in group perception. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology (pp. 139–66). Chichester, UK: WileyCrossRef
Hardy, M. J. L. (1963). Blood feuds and the payment of blood money in the Middle East. Beirut: Catholic Press
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race?Cognition, 54, 209– 52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1982). Esteem and control bases of blame: “Adaptive” strategies for victims versus observers. Journal of Personality, 50, 180–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 129–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, B., Miller, N., Stenstrom, D., Denson, T., & Schmader, T. (2004). The role of vicarious retribution in intergroup conflict. Manuscript in preparation
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., Ames, D. R., & Curtis, M. (2004). Vicarious shame and guilt. Unpublished manuscript
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 331–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedenthal, P. M., Tangney, J. P. & Gavanski, I. (1994). “If only I weren't” versus “If only I hadn't”: Distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 585–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press
Pettigrew, T. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rantilla, A. K. (2000). Collective task responsibility allocation: Revisiting the group-serving bias. Small Group Research, 31, 739–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In K. Fiedler & G. R. Semin (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996) An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. A., Ford, C. E., (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall
Tangney, J. P. (1992). Situational determinants of shame and guilt in young adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interpersonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.) Self-conscious emotions (pp. 64–113). New York: Guilford Press
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., Barlow, D. B., (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: The Guilford Press
Weinstein, M., Finnegan, M., & Watanabe, T. (2001, September 24). Racial profiling gains support as search tactic. The Los Angeles Times
Wicker, F. W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D. (1983). Participant descriptions of guilt and shame. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, D. & Simon, A. F. (1998) Categorical and dynamic groups: Implications for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A., Insko (Eds.) Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Yzerbyt, V. Y. Corneille, & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Oxford: Blackwell

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×