Suchergebnisse

How does historical victimization and its memorialization impact present-day outgroup attitudes in conflict-riven societies? This study explores this question using a survey experiment with a representative sample of 2000 Jewish Israelis—half of whom are direct descendants of Holocaust survivors—and a content analysis of 98 state-approved school textbooks, examining how histories of victimization become socialized and shape political attitudes. We find that, in Israel, family victimization during the Holocaust plays surprisingly little role in shaping present-day attitudes toward outgroups. Rather, perceived historical victimization of the Jewish and Israeli people is broadly socialized among the Israeli public and is a stronger predictor of outgroup (in)tolerance. These findings shed light on the power of societal victimhood narratives—even in the absence of personal family histories of victimization—to shape political attitudes in conflict contexts, with long-term implications for intergroup cooperation and conflict.

Moral dilemmas amid war on terrorism include repeated harsh moral choices, which often pose threats to one's moral image. Given that people strive to view themselves as moral, how do they cope with such morally compromising decisions? We suggest and test two strategies to cope with morally threatening decision-making under in-group moral responsibility amid war on terrorism: (a) trivialization of the moral dilemma and (b) resentment toward the target. Four experimental studies measured (study 1) and manipulated (studies 2–4) these hypothesized mechanisms, presenting a similar collateral damage dilemma to Israeli Jews in the context of the 2014 Gaza conflict (studies 1 and 2) and to Americans in the context of the US campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (studies 3 and 4). Results demonstrate that both trivialization and resentment facilitate harsh moral choices under conditions of moral accountability. Studying the mechanism underlying moral decision-making in conflicts is key to understanding moral injury and the process of moral repair.

Moral dilemmas amid war on terrorism include repeated harsh moral choices, which often pose threats to one's moral image. Given that people strive to view themselves as moral, how do they cope with such morally compromising decisions? We suggest and test two strategies to cope with morally threatening decision-making under in-group moral responsibility amid war on terrorism: (a) trivialization of the moral dilemma and (b) resentment toward the target. Four experimental studies measured (study 1) and manipulated (studies 2–4) these hypothesized mechanisms, presenting a similar collateral damage dilemma to Israeli Jews in the context of the 2014 Gaza conflict (studies 1 and 2) and to Americans in the context of the US campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (studies 3 and 4). Results demonstrate that both trivialization and resentment facilitate harsh moral choices under conditions of moral accountability. Studying the mechanism underlying moral decision-making in conflicts is key to understanding moral injury and the process of moral repair.