Competitive Victimhood in Response to Accusations of Ingroup Harmdoing

Abstract

Individuals are motivated to maintain a positive moral evaluation of social groups to which they belong. Accusations of unjust harmdoing on the part of the ingroup threaten the group's moral identity. One strategy for restoring ingroup moral identity after such a threat is competitive victimhood: claiming the ingroup has suffered as much or more than the harmed outgroup and other relevant groups. Two studies tested this process. In Study 1, male participants were more likely to claim that men are discriminated against compared to women after their group was accused of harming women. In Study 2, undergraduates were more likely to claim that their group is discriminated against compared to other campus groups after undergraduates were accused of harming university staff. Competitive victimhood did not occur when outgroup victimization was framed as the fault of the outgroup itself (Study 1) or a group other than the ingroup (Study 2).