Collective Victimhood Beliefs and Policy Support Across Conflict-Affected Societies

Collective victimhood beliefs may have different implications for conflict-related policy support depending on how groups interpret their own and others’ suffering. Using cross-sectional survey data from 12,499 respondents across 14 ethnonational groups in 10 conflict-affected societies, we examined four single-item indicators: conflict-specific and global competitive victimhood, perceived parity in suffering, and recognition of victims’ shared human status despite differences in victimization. Pooled multilevel models and group-specific regressions assessed associations with support for reconciliation, intergroup equality, and aggression-related policies. Consistent with preregistered hypotheses, both competitive beliefs were positively associated with aggression, whereas both inclusive beliefs were positively associated with reconciliation and equality. Human-level inclusion had higher mean ratings than parity-based inclusion in 12 of 14 groups and showed stronger positive associations with reconciliation and equality and a stronger negative association with aggression. Its association with aggression was negative in all 14 groups, although association magnitudes varied. Exploratory analyses identified weaker associations between human-level inclusion and equality in active-conflict settings and more negative associations between conflict-specific competitive victimhood and equality among relatively higher-power groups, although contextual comparisons involved only 10 settings. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing recognition of shared humanity from judgments of equivalent suffering.