European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

39, 154162 (2009)

Published online 14 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.492

The threat of those who understand: Ways in which out-groups induce guilt
SVEN ZEBEL1*, BERTJAN DOOSJE1 AND RUSSELL SPEARS1,2
1 2

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Abstract Two types of out-groups are hypothesized to make people feel guilty about their in-groups misdeeds. Given its expertise and legitimacy, a disapproving victimized out-group should raise guilt. However, when a morally tainted perpetrator out-group is the evaluator, a need to differentiate the self from this out-group should characterize the guilt responses. This out-groups disapproval should therefore diminish guilt, whereas some understanding toward the in-groups position may paradoxically increase guilt. Moreover, these patterns are likely to be accentuated as in-group identication increases. Predictions were supported among Dutch participants (N 145) who read how either the current Jewish Dutch (victimized out-group) or Germans (perpetrator out-group) evaluated the Dutch collaboration with the Nazis. Results indicated that compassion for the victimized partially mediated the guilt responses. Implications for how perpetrator groups are persuaded to acknowledge their misdeeds are discussed. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

At the UN conference against racism in Durban in 2001, former colonial countries apologized for past slavery as a crime against humanity (Mixed emotions. . ., 2001). In light of this clear acknowledgment, the Dutch minister of Cities and Integration policies expressed deep remorse for Dutch slavery, and said that structural measures were necessary for the descendants of slaves (Nederland, 2001). This statement can be interpreted as an expression of guilt feelings on behalf of ones nation which motivate reparation intentions. In this paper, we examine how others evaluations of the wrongs of ones group inuence such feelings of group-based guilt. In particular, we propose that the evaluations from the victimized out-group, or from a morally tainted perpetrator out-group, are likely to affect guilt. From a social identity perspective, in-group identication is expected to moderate this inuence.

GROUP-BASED GUILT: IT DEPENDS ON THE SOURCE To the extent that membership in social groups is an important part of peoples identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), events that ` -vis relevant out-groups thus relate to the self and therefore acquire harm or favor the social group people belong to vis-a emotional meaning (e.g., Smith, 1993; Zebel, Pennekamp, et al., 2007). Thus, when people learn that their group has illegitimately mistreated or exploited an out-group, such appraisals may elicit feelings of guilt on behalf of their group membership (Branscombe, Doosje, & McGarty, 2002; Iyer, Leach, & Crosby, 2003). Experiencing such feelings, people become motivated to repair the harm their perpetrator group has inicted (e.g., Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998; Zebel, Doosje, & Spears, 2004).
*Correspondence to: Sven Zebel, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: s.zebel@uva.nl

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 25 January 2007 Accepted 13 November 2007

Group-based guilt

155

However, strong feelings of group-based guilt are not very common, because (a) guilt feelings are aversive due to their negative self-focus (Iyer et al., 2003; Leach, Snider, & Iyer, 2002) and (b) the negative evaluation of the in-groups behavior intrinsic to group-based guilt contradicts peoples motivation to perceive their group positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Thus, how people come to acquire and accept negative information about their in-group is crucial to predict when people do experience guilt. There is abundant evidence that people attach great value to information derived from members of their in-group, because such information is most relevant to their identity (e.g., Hornsey & Imani, 2004; Mackie, Worth, & Asuncion, 1990; Turner, 1982). Consistent with this, Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, and Manstead (2006) demonstrated how information about the in-groups misdeeds from an in-group source reinforced feelings of guilt, especially among higher identiers who attach great importance and relevance to their group membership (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). However, we consider it equally important to identify ways in which out-groups might induce guilt. We can think of at least two reasons for this. First, perpetrator groups are often reluctant to initiate self-critical guilt for the harm they have inicted upon other groups (e.g., Cohen, 2002; Leach et al., 2002). Second, if perpetrator groups are susceptible to the inuence of out-groups, this might benet those who they have victimized. That is, if out-groups can raise guilt in perpetrator groups, such guilt might stimulate an apology and support for compensation (e.g., Iyer et al., 2003), as well as reduce prejudice toward victimized out-groups (e.g., Pedersen, Beven, Walker, & Grifths, 2004). Such changes due to the persuasion of out-groups would offer new insights into intergroup dynamics and more hope for intergroup reconciliation. In the present research, we examine two types of evaluations directed at a perpetrator group: a clear disapproval or some understanding for their position. Based on the literature on intergroup persuasion and criticism, a disapproval from out-groups may readily be perceived as destructive and illegitimate (e.g., Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002; Hornsey & Imani, 2004) and may thus not elicit strong guilt. Given this sensitivity to a disapproval, an out-groups expression of understanding might be more likely to raise guilt. Through such understanding out-groups may indicate their appreciation of the difculty and complexity of the situation during which the wrongs were perpetrated, taking into account the power of the circumstances. Such understanding might raise less sensitivity than an explicit disapproval. We consider the inuence of such expressions from two distinct out-groups: the victimized out-group and a morally tainted, perpetrator out-group. These are compared to identical evaluations from the in-group.

THE VICTIMIZED OUT-GROUP AS SOURCE OF EVALUATION An important issue is how perpetrator groups react to the attitudes that the victimized out-group expresses about past wrongs. We argue that these evaluations are difcult to discount, because the victimized out-group can be considered to be most knowledgeable and the most legitimate source to evaluate these wrongs (see also Alcoff, 1991; Miceli, 1992). Therefore, its disapproval should result in relatively strong guilt feelings compared to when a less legitimate out-group disapproves (see below). This pattern should be prevalent among higher identiers, who are motivated most to protect the image of their in-group (if possible) in the face of threat (e.g., Doosje et al., 1998; Ellemers et al., 1999; Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006). When the victimized out-group instead expresses some understanding, it seems more difcult to predict responses among the perpetrator group. If anything, we think this expression is quite unexpected coming from this source and might be interpreted as a sign of leniency on part of the victimized. Given this relatively positive evaluation, perpetrator group members may feel inclined to reciprocate this with relatively high levels of guilt. Similarly, feelings of interpersonal guilt are strongest in relations that are characterized by feelings of concern and understanding for each other (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994).

A PERPETRATOR OUT-GROUP AS SOURCE OF EVALUATION Many examples exist in which victimized groups have been hurt by more than one perpetrator group. Some former colonies have had more than one colonizer (e.g., South-Africa, India). In addition, during world war II (WWII), the
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

156

Sven Zebel et al.

German Nazis were assisted by large portions of other national groups (e.g., Croatia, Netherlands, Baltic States) in their persecution of Jewish people. We argue that when the past misdeeds of one perpetrator group in such contexts are evaluated by another, such evaluations are likely to be rejected, especially among higher identiers. Higher identiers likely perceive these evaluations as a threat to the moral value of their group, and are therefore motivated to differentiate themselves from this perpetrator out-group. This prediction ts a meta-analysis demonstrating that high group identication is associated with a strong motivation to differentiate the in-group from the out-group when intergroup distinctiveness is low (Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). The present study involved Dutch participants and the WWII context to examine the inuence of out-groups evaluations. Thus, some read how the current German population evaluated how many Dutch people collaborated with the German Nazis to persecute Jewish people. When faced with this morally tainted perpetrator out-group, Dutch higher identiers should be strongly motivated toward differentiation. One obvious way to do this is to sympathize with the Jewish victims during WWII, because the lack of compassion for Jewish people clearly characterized the German Nazis. Thus, when faced with the Germans evaluations, Dutch higher identiers should indicate high levels of compassion for the Jewish victims during WWII to show that they are on moral high ground. In addition, higher identiers need for distinctiveness should also direct their experience of guilt. When the perpetrator out-group disapproves of the in-groups wrongs, the tendency to contrast from this evaluation by indicating weak guilt should be stronger as in-group identication increases. The experience of compassion for the victims mentioned above may help to reduce guilt, as it moves the focus from the wrongs of the in-group to the plight of the victimized out-group. This is consistent with Iyer et al. (2003) who demonstrated that a focus on the victimized out-group elicits sympathy, whereas a focus on the in-groups responsibility for wrongdoing induces guilt. Similarly, in another line of guilt research, we demonstrate that taking the perspective of the victimized out-group leads to increased compassion among higher identiers, but not to higher levels of guilt as it did among lower identiers. Here compassion also served to inhibit guilt for higher identiers (Zebel, Doosje, & Spears, 2007). When the perpetrator out-group expresses understanding, higher identiers should seek differentiation by evaluating the in-groups wrongs especially negatively, and thus guilt should increase. Thus, paradoxically, higher identiers may report strong guilt feelings in response to signs of understanding from this tainted out-group to indicate that they think differently about their groups actions, and thus that they are different from this out-group. Similarly, Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje (2004) demonstrated that sympathetic expressions from an out-group constitute a threat (and induce negative affect) when they do not t the perspective of the in-group on the issue. Given this particular threat of those who understand, both compassion and guilt should increase as a result of the need for differentiation. Therefore, compassion may predict positively feelings of guilt in this context. Taken together, it is hypothesized that in-group identication is positively associated with guilt when either the in-group or victimized out-group disapproves, but a strong negative relation is expected in the case of a perpetrator out-group. In contrast, expressions of understanding from the victimized out-group might be reciprocated with relatively strong guilt. In addition, signs of understanding from the perpetrator out-group should lead identication to inuence guilt positively due to the need for differentiation among higher identiers. Statistically, these predictions comprise a three-way interaction effect between the type of source, type of evaluation, and group identication on guilt. Crucially, we predicted a signicant simple interaction between identication and type of evaluation when the source is the perpetrator out-group. We expect compassion to mediate this simple interaction: identication should predict positively compassion (irrespective of evaluation), and compassion should negatively predict guilt in the case of a disapproval, but positively predict it in the case of understanding (i.e., mediated moderation, Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005).

METHOD Participants Students at the University of Amsterdam (N 185) participated for course credit. Forty participants were omitted (18 were not Dutch, 17 failed to indicate the correct source on the manipulation check, 3 had missing data, and 2 were Jewish, the victimized out-group). The remaining 145 participants comprised 109 women (age M 20 years; range 1844).
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Group-based guilt Design and Procedure

157

The design consisted of national identication as a continuous independent variable and type of source (victimized out-group, perpetrator out-group, or in-group) and type of evaluation (disapproval or some understanding) as two between subjects variables.

National Identication Participants rst indicated their identication with being Dutch (eight items identical to Doosje et al., 1998; e.g., Being Dutch is an important part of how I see myself; a .94). Scales ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) (M 5.14, SD 1.08, range 27). Persecution of Jewish People in the Netherlands During WWII A text then described how the Nazis deported and murdered a high percentage of Jewish people (73%) in the Netherlands during WWII compared to other European countries (Moore, 1998). As two causes, it was mentioned that (a) when the Nazis intentions were still unclear, many non-Jewish Dutch citizens reported which Jewish people they knew; and that (b) many Jewish people were easily traced because 80% lived in the seven largest Dutch cities, despite the many hiding places that non-Jewish people offered. We chose to include both negative and positive aspects of the non-Jewish Dutch actions such that the upcoming evaluations could both be applied.

Manipulation of Source Participants were then told that their university had recently investigated how these events are viewed upon. In the in-group condition, it was stated that this research was done among a representative sample from the Dutch population. In the victimized out-group and perpetrator out-group condition, the italicized words in the last sentence were changed to the Jewish population in the Netherlands and German population, respectively.

Manipulation of Evaluation In the disapproval condition, participants were then told to what degree this specic population felt that Dutch people during WWII misbehaved (or behaved properly in the understanding condition). Accordingly, participants read that 92% of this population indicated that they strongly disapproved of the Dutch behavior (or felt that the Dutch behavior was good enough). In their view, the Dutch had not done enough (or done enough) to help Jewish Dutch people.

Source Manipulation Check Participants were asked to indicate which population had indicated that the Dutch had not done enough (or done enough in the understanding condition) to help Jewish people: the French, correct population, Belgian or other population. The italicized words were tailored to t the conditions.

Group-Based Guilt and Compassion Participants answered two items from Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappens (2004) and Doosje et al.s (1998) guilt measure, (i.e., I feel guilty about the negative things the Dutch people have done to Jewish people, I can easily feel guilty about
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

158

Sven Zebel et al.

the bad outcomes received by Jewish people in the Netherlands brought about by the Dutch) complemented with two items (i.e., I feel guilty when I am confronted with the negative things the Dutch have done to Jewish people, The behavior of the Dutch toward Jewish people makes me easily feel guilty). Compassion comprised two items (i.e., I sympathize with/feel compassion for Jewish people when I am confronted with the behavior of the Dutch during WWII). A principal axis exploratory factor analysis clearly indicated the two expected factors (all loadings of the four guilt items on factor 1 > 0.83; a .93; both loadings of the compassion items on factor 2 > 0.85; r .77, p < .001). Source Appraisals Participants indicated their agreement with The (source population) knows well what has happened during WWII in the Netherlands. (perceived expertise), as well as with I think the (source population) has no right to make a judgment about the Dutch during WWII.(illegitimacy of the sources evaluation). All above emotion and appraisal items were answered on scales ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree).

RESULTS All analyses comprised GLM procedures in SPSS, with national group identication as a continuous independent variable and the type of source and the type of evaluation as between subjects variables. Consistent with a regression approach, we standardized all independent variables and rst tested all main effects without specifying the interactions. In a second analysis, we added the two-way interactions. In the nal analysis, we included the three-way interaction.1

Group-Based Guilt In all three rounds of analyses, no main or two-way interactions emerged, all Fs < 2.25, ps > .10. However, the predicted three-way interaction was signicant, F(2,133) 3.77, p .026, partial h2 0.054. Firstly, this interaction indicated no simple interaction between identication and source in the understanding condition, F(2,133) < 1. Consistent with predictions, this simple interaction did reach signicance in the disapproval condition, F(2,133) 3.30, p .04. Simple slopes indicated that identication did not predict guilt signicantly in the in-group disapproval condition, although the slope went in the expected positive direction, b .29, SE 0.31, M 3.74, p .36. In the victimized out-group disapproval condition, identication had a marginally signicant positive effect, b .42, SE 0.22, M 2.90, p .06. As hypothesized, identication was signicantly negative in the perpetrator out-group disapproval condition, b 1.02, SE 0.51, M 3.06, p .05 (see Figure 1). This latter slope differed signicantly from the former two slopes, F(1,133) 4.66, p .03 and F(1,133) 6.53, p .01, respectively. No other differences emerged. Secondly, we examined the simple interactions between type of evaluation and identication within each source condition. In the in-group source condition, it was not signicant, F(1,133) < 1, indicating no identication effect in the understanding b .04, SE 0.22, M 3.71, p ns, or disapproval condition (above). In addition, the simple interaction was not signicant in the victimized out-group source condition, F(1,133) 4.38, p .10. As shown above, national identication inuenced guilt marginally positively in the disapproval condition, but this slope did not differ from the slope in the understanding condition, b .17, SE 0.28, M 3.74, p .34. Figure 1b shows that some understanding led to the highest guilt levels for this source, irrespective of identication. A simple main effect analysis corroborated this: on average, understanding (M 3.74; SE 0.32) increased guilt compared to disapproval (M 2.90; SE 0.23), F(1,133) 4.46, p .037, independently of identication.
1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this approach. Lower order effects can be quite different depending on whether higher order interaction effects are included in the model, due to autocorrelation between the independent variables. The current approach should therefore provide the clearest picture.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Group-based guilt

159

Figure 1. The effect of disapproval or understanding expressions from different sources on feelings of group-based guilt as a function of national in-group identication

Most importantly, the hypothesized simple interaction was signicant in the perpetrator out-group source condition, F(1,133) 4.22, p .03. As expected, the signicant negative slope of identication in the disapproval condition differed signicantly from the positive slope in the understanding condition, b .27, SE 0.26, M 3.26, although the latter did not signicantly differ from zero, p .32 (see Figure 1).

Compassion In the rst round, no effects emerged, all Fs < 1.55, ps > .20. In the second round, the expected interaction between source of evaluation and identication was signicant, F(2,135) 5.25, p .005, partial h2 0.08, indicating that identication did not inuence compassion in the in-group (b .08, SE 0.13, M 5.26, p .56) and victimized out-group source condition (b .21, SE 0.16, M 5.43, p .19). As expected, identication did inuence compassion positively in the perpetrator out-group condition, b .59, SE 0.19, M 5.31, p .002. Only the latter slope differed signicantly from
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

160

Sven Zebel et al.

the former two, both Fs(1,135) > 9.06, ps < .004. In the third round, no other effects emerged, and the two-way interaction remained.

Mediated Moderation in the Perpetrator Out-group Source Condition Following Muller et al.s conditions (2005), a multiple regression analysis again demonstrated the signicant interaction between identication and type of evaluation on guilt in the perpetrator out-group source condition, b .64, SE 0.27, t(37) 2.32, p .026. Second, identication inuenced the mediator (compassion), b .58, SE 0.24, t(37) 2.44, p .026, whereas the interaction between identication and evaluation did not, b .03, SE 0.22, t(37) 0.15, p .88. In the third step, we included the mediator as a predictor as well as its interaction with type of evaluation in the analysis of guilt outlined in step 1. Compassion had no direct effect on guilt, b .11, SE 0.22, t(35) 0.52, p .60, but the interaction with evaluation was signicant, b .67, SE 0.20, t(35) 3.33, p .002. This interaction conrmed that compassion reduced guilt marginally signicantly in the disapproval condition, b .69, SE 0.35, t(35) 2.01, p .052, but signicantly increased guilt in case of understanding, b .66, SE 0.21, t(35) 3.11, p .004. Due to this interaction, the formerly signicant interaction between identication and evaluation on guilt turned non-signicant, b .25, SE 0.27, t(35) 0.93, p .36. This reduction was signicant, Sobels z 1.96, p .05. These results demonstrate mediated moderation (see Figure 2).

Appraisals of the Source of Disapproval Perceived Expertise In the rst round, the effect of source was signicant, F(2,140) 7.21, p .001, partial h2 0.09: participants perceived the victimized out-group (M 4.93; SE 0.16) to know better what had happened during WWII in the Netherlands than the in-group (M 4.10; SE 0.17) or perpetrator out-group (M 4.20; SE 0.19), both ps < .01. No other differences emerged. In addition, the effect of type of evaluation was signicant, F(1,140) 4.10, p .045, partial h2 0.03, indicating that participants attributed greater expertise when some understanding (M 4.61; SE 0.15) compared to disapproval was expressed (M 4.20; SE 0.13). In the second and third rounds, these main effects remained; no interactions emerged.

Perceived Illegitimacy of Evaluation The effect of source was signicant, F(2,140) 11.18, p < .001, partial h2 0.14, indicating that the victimized out-groups evaluation as expected was perceived as less illegitimate (M 3.24; SE 0.20) than the in-groups (M 4.31; SE 0.21) or perpetrator out-groups evaluation (M 4.51; SE 0.23), both ps < .001. No other differences emerged. In the second and third rounds, this main effect remained; no other effects emerged.

Figure 2. How compassion mediates the simple interaction between identication and type of evaluation on guilt, in the perpetrator outgroup source condition. Note: Unstandardized regression weights are shown. p < .05; p < .01; ^p .052
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Group-based guilt DISCUSSION

161

In the present research, our aim was to examine whether distinct out-groups can induce feelings of guilt about the wrongs of the in-group. A victimized out-group and a perpetrator out-group elicited such self-critical feelings among in-group members, but importantly moderated by the specic evaluation expressed and the level of group identication. First, the victimized out-group was perceived to be knowledgeable about and as a legitimate evaluator of these wrongs. A disapproval from this source proved therefore difcult to discount, explaining why higher identiers felt stronger guilt feelings compared to when a less legitimate out-group source disapproved. This extends ndings from the interpersonal domain of guilt, where opinions from victimized or offended people themselves are given particular weight and legitimacy (Alcoff, 1991; Miceli, 1992). In addition, some understanding from the victimized out-group seemed to be particularly impactful on guilt, perhaps because this expression was most in line with the perspective that participants themselves held (i.e., they attributed greater expertise to sources who expressed understanding compared to a disapproval). However, we also think that participants perceive this understanding from the victimized out-group as quite lenient, although we do not have direct evidence for this. Participants seemed to reciprocate this positive expression with relatively strong guilt (see also Baumeister et al., 1994). Future research is needed to examine such reciprocation. Second, a perpetrator out-group also induced guilt, albeit in a paradoxal manner. As hypothesized, evaluations from this source were seen as most illegitimate, and the tendency to differentiate the in-group from this morally tainted out-group was reected in compassion and guilt as in-group identication increased. That is, confronted with the perpetrator out-group, higher identiers expressed stronger compassion for the victimized. This particular focus arguably helped to differentiate themselves from this tainted out-group (see also Jetten et al., 2004). In addition, evaluations from this out-group were strongly contrasted in terms of guilt: higher identiers indicated particularly weak guilt in response to a disapproval, but somewhat stronger guilt feelings in reaction to understanding. Finally, the mediation analyses convincingly demonstrated how both compassion and guilt serve this need for differentiation. In the case of a disapproval, increased feelings of compassion for the victimized helped higher identiers to reduce their guilt feelings and thus to oppose this negative evaluation (see also Zebel, Doosje et al., 2007). In contrast, compassion for the victimized intensied guilt when higher identiers wished to oppose the expression of understanding. Importantly, alternative processes that underlie the effects of the perpetrator out-group source may exist, although we consider the need for differentiation to be primary. For example, Heiders balance theory (1958) might also explain these ndings, although it could also predict a heightened regard for the out-group source to bolster a positive perspective on the in-groups actions in the case of understanding (which did not occur). From a need for differentiation perspective, this change in source evaluation is unlikely. In addition, the above ndings do not imply that compassion for the victimized is only forthcoming in the case of a perpetrator out-group source: the overall mean was well above the scale midpoint. However, they do indicate that compassion among higher identiers increases further when they feel a need to differentiate their social self from a threatening out-group. One important implication of the present research is that support or understanding is appraised quite differently depending on the perpetrator groups relation to the specic out-group expressing it (such support occurs in the international community we argue). On the one hand, such expressions from the victimized out-group might be perceived as lenient and indicative of a positive attitude toward the in-group and as such be reciprocated with strong guilt feelings. On the other hand, as our research shows, similar understanding from out-groups that are viewed with skepticism or even distrust on this issue may motivate perpetrator groups to afrm their high moral status through the expression of guilt. Paradoxically then, groups may be persuaded to put on a hair shirt when they are confronted with threatening support and accept more readily their perpetrator role. It might also operate indirectly when others than the distrusted out-group itself point out (perhaps strategically) this understanding.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Dutch Organization for Scientic Research funded this research (grant number 452-02-076). We thank three anonymous reviewers and Editor Leonel Garcia-Marques for their helpful comments.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

162

Sven Zebel et al. REFERENCES

Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 532. 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. 4966). New York and Hove: Psychology Press. Branscombe, N. R., Slugoski, B., & Kappen, D. M. (2004). The measurement of collective guilt: What it is and what it is not. In N. R. Branscombe, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 1634). New York: Cambridge University Press. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243267. Cohen, S. (2002). States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When ones group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872886. Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt: The effects of in-group identication. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 325338. Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2004). Sources of respect: The effects of being liked by in-groups and out-groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 155172. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell. Gordijn, E. H., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Dumont, M. (2006). Emotional reactions to harmful intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 1530. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.296 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 365383. Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). Its OK if we say it, but you cant: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293307. Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benets and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117129. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862879. Leach, C. W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker, & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specication, development, and integration (pp. 136163). New York: Cambridge University Press. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812822. Miceli, M. (1992). How to make someone feel guilty: Strategies of guilt inducement and their goals. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 22, 81104. Mixed emotions as Durban winds up. (8 September 2001). Retrieved 4 November 2004, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/ 1530976.stm Moore, B. (1998). Slachtoffers en overlevenden: De nazi-vervolging van de joden in Nederland 19401945 [Victims and survivors: The Nazi persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands 19401945]. Amsterdam: Bakker. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852863. Nederland heeft diep spijt van slavernij [The Netherlands express deep remorse for slavery]. (3 September 2001). De Volkskrant, p. 1. Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Grifths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward indigenous Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233249. Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in-group perception (pp. 297315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3348). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redenition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 1540). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Zebel, S., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2004). It depends on your point of view: Implications of perspective-taking and national identication for Dutch collective guilt. In N. R. Branscombe, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 148168). New York: Cambridge University Press. Zebel, S., Doosje, B., & Spears, R. (2007). How perspective-taking helps or hinders guilt as a function of identication. Manuscript submitted for publication. Zebel, S., Pennekamp, S. F., Van Zomeren, M., Doosje, B., Van Kleef, G. A., Vliek, M. L. W., et al. (2007). Vessels with gold or guilt: Emotional reactions to family involvement associated with glorious or gloomy aspects of the colonial past. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 7186.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 154162 (2009) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp