Collective victimhood and responsibility attributions: The Lebanese civil war through the lens of social identity

Abstract

Abstract

Two studies examined how victimhood beliefs and responsibility attributions regarding the Lebanese Civil War vary by group membership (Lebanese Christians vs. Muslims) and by religious and national identification. We predicted ingroup-favoring patterns in victimhood beliefs and responsibility attributions, particularly among individuals high in religious identification and low in national identification. Study 1 ( N = 405) assessed beliefs following exposure to a chronological war narrative, and Study 2 ( N = 338) introduced event type (ingroup harm-doing vs. ingroup victimization). Across studies, religious identification amplified defensive patterns, especially in responsibility attributions, whereas national identification showed limited buffering effects. In Study 2, event type qualified both victimhood beliefs and responsibility attributions: highly religious participants showed ingroup-favoring responses following reminders of ingroup victimization and more symmetrical attributions following harm-doing. National identification played a limited role, mainly among low religious identifiers, and group membership did not significantly moderate outcomes. Despite persistent defensiveness, participants also acknowledged outgroup suffering, suggesting potential for inclusive victimhood in post-conflict Lebanon.