Laura De Guissmé

Groups that perceive themselves as victims can engage in “competitive victimhood”. We propose that, in some societal circumstances, this competition bears on the recognition of past sufferings – rather than on their relative severity –, fostering negative intergroup attitudes. Three studies are presented. Study 1, a survey among Sub-Saharan African immigrants in Belgium (N=127), showed that a sense of collective victimhood was associated with more secondary anti-Semitism. This effect was mediated by a sense of lack of victimhood recognition, then by the belief that this lack of recognition was due to that of Jews’ victimhood, but not by competition over the severity of the sufferings. Study 2 replicated this mediation model among Muslim immigrants (N=125). Study 3 experimentally demonstrated the negative effect of the unequal recognition of groups’ victimhood on intergroup attitudes in a fictional situation involving psychology students (N=183). Overall, these studies provide evidence that struggle for victimhood recognition can foster intergroup conflict.

expanded English version of a short chapter that will appear in French  Páez, D., Bobowik, M.,, De Guismé,L.,  Liu, J.H. & Licata, L. (2016). Mémoire collective et représentations sociales de l’Histoire. In Lo Monaco, G., Delouvée,S. & Rateu.P. (Eds.) Les représentations sociales (pp.xx-yy). Bruxelles: De Boeck.

Collaboration with the Nazi occupier during WWII has always been a topic of dissent between French-speakers (FS) and Dutch-speakers (DS) in Belgium. According to a popular myth coined after the war and often narrated in the media and literature, collaboration was widespread in Flanders, whereas Walloons bravely resisted, although historical reality is much more nuanced. These representations regularly resurface in political debates surrounding the Belgian linguistic conflict. Demands for amnesty addressed by nationalist Flemish parties are a case in point. A questionnaire survey (N = 521; 315 FS and 206 DS) showed that collaboration was represented negatively and was morally condemned in both groups. However, DS expressed more Support for Amnesty (SA) than FS. This effect of Linguistic Group (LG) on SA was mediated by judgment of morality of collaboration, and this mediation was moderated by identification with the LG. Interestingly, SA was predicted by judgments of morality of DS, but not of FS, collaborators, in both groups, as if francophone collaboration was deemed irrelevant. Results suggest that differences between DS and FS in political position
taking regarding the granting of amnesty are partly due to differences in representations of collaboration, and to different perspectives towards the same historical representation. The myth is both shared and disputed.