'You don't compare horrors, you just don't do that': Examining assumptions and extending the scope of comparative victim beliefs.

Social psychological research on collective victimhood has often focused on comparisons between the ingroup's and outgroups' collective victimization (i.e. comparative victim beliefs such as competitive victimhood or inclusive victim beliefs). This qualitative study examines how people in different contexts of collective victimization and its aftermath make sense of items commonly used to assess comparative victim beliefs, and how they extend or challenge these constructs and their underlying assumptions. We used thematic analysis to analyse eight focus group discussions among four minority groups in the United States with historical or more recent experiences of collective victimization (Armenian Americans, Burundian refugees, Jewish Americans and Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees). Findings extend commonly assessed comparative victim beliefs and reveal participants' critical perspectives on these constructs. The findings also highlight the dialectical structure of collective victim beliefs: Participants not only endorsed but also rejected comparative victim beliefs, and relatedly described both ingroup power and outgroup power in the context of their group's victimization. These findings extend existing social psychological literature on comparative victim beliefs and intergroup relations.

Resistance to collective victimization and oppression.

Social psychological research on resistance has mostly been limited to collective action: collective, overt, organized, material resistance. However, people targeted by collective violence and oppression engage in many other resistance strategies, including individual, covert, everyday, and psychological resistance. This review differentiates dimensions of resistance to collective victimization, arguing that social psychology should consider the full range of resistance strategies. Moreover, non-violent resistance and violent resistance are not always mutually exclusive, essentialized principles. Instead, they result from dynamic and strategic choices people make when considering the violent contexts they are resisting. A review of the scarce research on collective resistance in violent, repressive contexts illustrates the need to theorize how the specific nature of these contexts shapes collective resistance.

Fighting the good fight: the relationship between belief in evil and support for violent policies.

The rhetoric of good and evil is prevalent in many areas of society and is often used to garner support for "redemptive violence" (i.e., using violence to rid and save the world from evil). While evil is discussed in psychological literature, beliefs about good and evil have not received adequate empirical attention as predictors of violent versus peaceful intergroup attitudes. In four survey studies, we developed and tested novel measures of belief in evil and endorsement of redemptive violence. Across four different samples, belief in evil predicted greater support for violence and lesser support for nonviolent responses. These effects were, in most cases, mediated by endorsement of redemptive violence. Structural equation modeling suggested that need for cognitive closure predicts belief in evil, and that the effect of belief in evil on support for violence is independent of right-wing authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and dangerous world beliefs.

Enhanced external and culturally sensitive attributions after extended intercultural contact.

This study examined the effect of close and extended intercultural contact on attributions for behaviour of out-group members. Specifically, it was hypothesized that extended intercultural contact would enhance the ability to make external and culturally sensitive attributions for ambiguous behaviour of out-group members, while decreasing the common tendency to overestimate internal factors. A content analysis of open-ended attributions supported these hypotheses, revealing that majority group members in Germany who had hosted an exchange student from another continent used significantly less internal and more external as well as culturally sensitive attributions to explain the behaviour described in critical intercultural incidents, compared to future hosts. The effect remained significant when controlling for perspective taking and prior intercultural experience. Moreover, the hypothesis was supported for scenarios describing different cultural groups (regardless of the exchange students' country of origin), suggesting a generalized effect. Problems of selection bias are discussed, and the importance of studying a range of positive outcomes of intercultural contact is emphasized.