The unifying potential of an appraisal approach to the experience of group victimization

The Unifying Potential of an Appraisal Approach to the Experience of Group Victimization Colin Wayne Leach in press The Social Psychology of Collective Victimhood Johanna Ray Vollhardt,

The Unifying Potential of an Appraisal Approach to the Experience of Group Victimization

Colin Wayne Leach

(in press) The Social Psychology of Collective Victimhood (Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Ed) New

York: Oxford University Press

Departments of Psychology & Africana Studies, Barnard College

Institute for Research in African-American Studies

Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences

Columbia University

New York, NY 10027

USA

The Unifying Potential of an Appraisal Approach to the Experience of Group Victimization

Colin Wayne Leach

Never again That was the lesson the world was meant to learn from the concerted mass

violence against the ethnic, religious, national, political, and other groups deemed undesirable by

the Nazis and their collaborators It is the same lesson the world was meant to learn from the 20th

century movements for decolonization and women’s suffrage And, the same lesson implied in

20th century mass violence in Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Cambodia, East Timor, Guatemala,

Rwanda, and so many more Yet, it is estimated that over 100 million non-combatants were

killed in the 25 largest conflicts in the 20th century (WHO, 2002) Until the lesson is learned,

social psychologists will continue to try to understand why individuals work together to commit

violence against individuals on the basis of their group membership and to understand the effects

of such group victimization on those targeted, as well as on society at large

As illustrated in the present volume, the phenomenon of group victimization can be

conceptualized in many different ways This is likely because many different kinds of groups

have been victimized and their victimization has occurred in many different times and places, via

varied means, and for diverse ends (Vollhardt, this volume) Thus, the victimization of a group

can be conceptualized as an existential (Hirschberger & Ein-Dor, this volume), autonomy

(Kachanoff, Wohl, & Taylor, this volume), or identity (Shnabel, Kahalon, Ullrich, & Aydin, this

volume) threat; as the structural violence of societal inequality (Mari, Bentrovato, Durante, &

Wassermann, this volume); as shared narratives transmitted from generation to generation

(Ferguson & Halliday, this volume; Taylor, Štambuk, Čorkalo Biruški, & O’Driscoll, this

volume); as subjective construals (Szabó, this volume); as precarious claims of moral power

(Perez & Salter, this volume), or rhetorical (McNeill & Vollhardt, this volume) or mobilization

(Reicher & Ulusahin, this volume) strategies Other chapters in the present volume attest to the

fact that group victimization can lead to humiliation (Jogdand, Khan, & Reicher, this volume),

the acknowledgement or denial of victimization (Twali, Hameiri, Vollhardt, & Nadler, this

volume), and existential and moral obligations (Klar, Schori-Eyal, & Yom Tov, this volume), or

adaptation (Bilewicz & Liu, this volume; Hirschberger & Ein-Dor, this volume)

As analysts of group victimization, what should we do with this great diversity of

experiences and effects? In the present chapter, I offer appraisal theory (for reviews, see Lazarus,

1991; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001) as an overarching conceptual framework by which we

may better understand the many and varied ways in which group victimization affects people

Based in its roots in Sartre and existential philosophy, appraisal may be understood as the social

and psychological process by which individuals act to give meaning to, and to alter, their lived

relation to the world (for a general discussion, see Leach & Tiedens, 2004) It is this focus on

meaning as a central act of human agency that makes appraisal a useful concept for

understanding the many ways in which people interpret, experience, and cope with being

victimized on the basis of their group membership (see Iyer & Leach, 2008; Miller & Major,

2000; Walker & Smith, 2002; van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, 2012; more generally, see Smith

& Mackie, 2015)

Because appraisal theory posits that people’s interpretation of events (such as group

victimization) is guided initially by the relevance of the event for a particular level of self (e.g.,

individual, interpersonal, in-group, societal) and a particular concern or goal at stake in the event

(e.g., physical survival, identity protection, moral virtue, exercise of power), appraisal theory

may be used to integrate all of the views of group victimization included in this volume, and

more And, because appraisal theory posits that coping is a moment by moment effort to most

effectively utilize one’s (material, social, psychological) resources to meet the most pressing demands on one’s most important concerns, appraisal theory may be used to conceptualize all of

the proposed effects of victimization on group members As such, appraisal theory provides an

overarching framework by which the many ways that group victimization operates in the world

can be understood as particular ways of making sense of, and dealing with, the phenomenon of

group victimization (see Figure 7.1)

[INSERT FIGURE 7.1 HERE]

The Victimization of Groups

Presumably, social psychologists wish to understand how mass violence affects victims

because violence is a serious external demand that can have profound implications for victims

materially, socially, and psychologically, especially if the adjustments required to cope with it

are not made Because violence, by definition, is an intentional effort at physical harm, victims

must also face the social and moral implications of a collection of others coordinating to harm

them This may be why the WHO (2002) highlights these elements in its definition of collective

violence, which is characterized as:

the instrumental use of violence by people who identify themselves as members of a

group—whether this group is transitory or has a more permanent identity—against

another group or set of individuals, in order to achieve political, economic or social

objectives

Thus, consistent with appraisal theory’s emphasis of the experience of discrete events, I

view group victimization as the social psychological consequence of an act(s) of violence on its targets (see Vollhardt, 2012) Repeated acts of violence, or a systematic campaign of violence—

as in genocide, mass killing, or structural violence—are thus viewed as an ongoing event or

series of events that can be appraised and coped with dynamically over time

In addition to its dynamic, over time, view of how group victimization is experienced, the

existential roots of appraisal theory also suggest that group victimization is best thought of as a shared “subject position” with intra- and inter-group dynamics, rather than as a stable status

location, social condition, or state of collective victimhood (for a general discussion, see Leach

& Tiedens, 2004) As a way of “being in the world,” the experience of group victimization is

understood as a necessarily active and effortful exercise of subjectivity and of agency Thus,

even if victims feel exactly the same way about the exact same interpretation of the exact same

instance(s) of violence, appraisal theory assumes that such consensus in appraisal, emotion, and

coping is the product of an active (shared) effort at meaning-making Victimization happens to

people But, people themselves determine their experience of victimization, and thus their

psychology of victimization A “vulgar materialism” or “structural determinism”—which

assumes that an objective act of violence necessarily determines how it is subjectively

experienced (for overviews, see Bulhan, 1985; Sandoval, 2000)—is anathema to appraisal

theory Given appraisal theory’s deep roots in existentialism (see Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, 1991),

it must view group victimization as a moment-to-moment subject position that is neither internal

(in the person) nor external (in the world) Group victimization is a social psychological state

that exists between the person and the world, constituted in the interstices where human social

experience and agency reside (see Fanon, 1967; Sartre, 1948; for overviews, see Bulhan, 1985;

Leach & Livingstone, 2015; Sandoval, 2000)

Because appraisal theory conceptualizes group victimization as a dynamic, existential,

and socially constituted subject position, it offers a different perspective than that embedded in

the concept of collective victimhood at the heart of much of the social psychological work on the

victimization of groups Bar-Tal (2009, p 231) defined collective victimhood by explaining that,

It seems that victimhood describes some lasting psychological state of mind that involves

beliefs, attitudes, emotions and behavioural tendencies This results on the one hand from

direct or indirect experience of victimization, and on the other hand from its maintenance

in the personal repertoire In other words, it is a state where the experienced harm and the

Thus, the term collective victimhood diverges from appraisal theory’s view of

victimization as an event or series of events, by assuming that the experience of victimization has somehow been “internalized” by the victim and become a part of their identity Indeed,

semantically speaking, the term victim-hood implies that being a victim is a central or enduring

quality of the person who experienced victimization The view articulated by Bar-Tal (2009) has deep roots in Hegel’s dialectical philosophy and in numerous subsequent theories of

subordination and stigma (for discussions, see Bulhan, 1985; Leach, Brown, & Worden, 2008) The assumption that victimization is necessarily internalized and thereby made part of a victim’s

psychology is also consistent with psychological approaches to trauma and its presumed effects

on psychological and social functioning (for discussions, see Bonanno, 2004; Bulhan, 1985)

In addition to the profound meta-theoretical differences between notions of collective

victimhood and group victimization from an appraisal theory perspective, there are also

empirical reasons to choose the appraisal view over the more static, materialist, and

psychologized view implied in collective victimhood Most notable is the well-documented fact

that most people who experience ostensible trauma—violent or otherwise—do not experience

serious disruption to their lives or lasting psychological or social effects (for reviews, see

Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno, Westphal, & Mancini, 2011)

Even after war, or deadly mass attacks, the majority who were directly exposed never

develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), for example Indeed, estimates are that only

about 15% of those exposed to traumatic events develop PTSD (for a review, see Ozer, Best,

Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003) This is why international studies find lifetime prevalence rates of PTSD

to fall below 10% of the population even in war-torn or highly violent societies like Northern

Ireland or South Africa (Atwoli, Stein, Koenen, & McLaughlin, 2015) Similarly, a sizable

minority of those who suffer irrevocable loss, such as bereavement, never show serious signs of

stress or psychological ill-health (for reviews, see Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno et al., 2011) This is

why a recent review of the literature by Bonanno et al (2011) labelled events like war,

interpersonal violence, and bereavement, as “potentially traumatic,” rather than (inherently)

“traumatic.” In fact, they estimated that the majority of people who face such events are best

characterized as “resilient” as they never show much disruption or dysfunction in the months and

years after even the most serious events, such as surviving violence or suffering an irrevocable

loss Bonanno et al (2011) also estimate that as many people recover over time from potentially

traumatic events than suffer greatly over time

Despite the common view that systemic discrimination, structural disadvantage, and

structural violence tend to damage psychological health, there is, in fact, very little empirical

evidence of this (for reviews, see Leach & Livingstone, 2015; Miller & Major, 2000; Walker &

Smith, 2002) Lower self-esteem, depression, traumatic stress, PTSD, and the like, are rare in

those victimized by societal inequality, just as they are in populations at large Of course, the

recent explosion of evidence that societal inequality affects the physical health of the worse off

is a different matter entirely This is partly because the environmental, medical, economic, and

sociological dimensions of societal inequality have a more direct link to physical health than to

psychological health For example, the link between violence, trauma, and PTSD is more

tenuous than the link between economic poverty, mother’s poorer pre-natal medical care, and

baby’s physical health

Although it might be easier for analysts if group victimization tended to produce similar

psychological effects in the majority of victims, this is clearly not the case Thus, approaches to

group victimization that assume individuals will internalize the event(s) and come to identify as

victims in a psychological state of victimhood likely characterize only a minority of people

These cases are interesting, and important But, they should not be taken as typical This is

applicable even in extreme cases, such as systematic violence on a mass scale Because the victimization of one’s group cannot be understood as a singular determinant of one’s

psychological experience, it seems wiser to examine group victimization with an approach that

emphasizes the psychological processes by which individuals make sense of their experience

Appraisal theory—and its constituent constructs of cognitive appraisal, perceived demands and

resources, emotion, and coping effort—are uniquely poised for this task

Appraisal Theory: Appraisal and Coping

Because appraisal theory is a conceptual framework of the social psychological processes

by which people interpret their dynamic relation to the world to render it meaningful and

navigable, appraisal theory has been used in work on several key psychological constructs

including stress, threat, emotion, and coping (for a review, see Scherer et al., 2001) However,

concepts such as stress, threat, and coping are also used in psychology and beyond in quite

informal ways that bear little resemblance to the formal definitions and conceptualizations

offered in appraisal theory For instance, a great deal of work on stigma and societal devaluation

claims to adopt a coping perspective (for reviews, see Miller & Major, 2000; van Zomeren,

Leach, & Spears, 2012) But, here, as in much psychology, these concepts tend to be used

loosely and informally (for discussions, see Leach & Livingstone, 2015; van Zomeren, et al.,

2012)

The potent concept of threat, for example (see also Hirschberger & Ein-Dor, this

volume), is used to describe a psychological state of feeling threatened that may result from

anywhere and anything (e.g., identity, moral, realistic, or symbolic, threat) Threat also is used to

describe an objective, material reality of facing a (presumably) overwhelming danger that poses

serious risk of harm of some kind In addition, threat is used to describe potentially harmful

situations that may or may not present any real risk of being (psychologically) overwhelmed or

incapacitated Much like the loose use of the concept trauma, the informal use of concepts such

threat, stress, or coping make it more difficult for analysts to offer precise descriptions and

explanations of the psychological experience of victimization and individuals’ and collectives’

effort to make sense of it and to deal with it By demonstrating how the overarching framework

of appraisal theory can be used to formally define concepts such as threat, challenge, and coping,

I aim to render the psychological experience of victimization more legible to we analysts, and

perhaps to victims themselves

Primary Appraisal: Relevance of Specific Concerns

As appraisal theory is a dynamic approach that views appraisal as a continual process

over time (Scherer et al., 2001), the theory marks three important stages through which people

move forward and back (see Figure 7.1) The first stage is called primary appraisal because it is

an initial assessment of whether what is happening in one’s environment is noticed and is

deemed relevant enough to one’s concerns to warrant further appraisal In other words, primary

appraisal helps people determine if what is “at stake” matters enough to them to engage in the

cognitive, affective, and motivational effort required to make sense of it and respond to it

(Lazarus, 1991)

Being a member of a victimized group can raise numerous concerns for individuals It

can encourage concern for potential losses or gains in power (see Shnabel et al., this volume),

status, autonomy (see Kachanoff et al., this volume), societal value, morality, identity, solidarity,

efficacy, and much more Thus, an appraisal approach cannot assume that one particular concern

(e.g., the power or societal value of the group) is most important to victimized groups in general

Because appraisal theory is, ultimately, a theory of human agency, it assumes that individuals choose—to some degree—what aspect of victimization is most relevant to them And, it is this

choice of what is at stake in victimization that helps determine how victimization is experienced

In other words, appraising the victimization of one’s group as mainly relevant because it harms

the goal of collective survival will promote a different experience than appraising victimization

as mainly relevant because it harms the goal of collective economic success To be sure, the

material and historical features of group victimization will influence what concerns are seen as at

stake Nevertheless, individuals must ultimately choose which of their concerns and goals are

seen as affected by the victimization of their group Understanding the experience of

victimization in this way has the added benefit of highlighting that victims may have many

concerns and goals, some of which will not be affected by their victimization

Some of the concerns raised by group victimization operate at the level of the victim’s

relation to the perpetrator (e.g., power, autonomy) and to society at large (e.g., societal value,

morality), whereas other of these concerns operate mainly within the victim group (e.g.,

solidarity, identity) In principle, appraisal theory is designed to apply to different levels of the

self (Lazarus, 1991), although most work has focused narrowly on the appraisal of concerns

relevant to oneself as an individual or as part of an intimate couple or dyad (for a review, see

Scherer et al., 2001) More recent work, however, has made clear how individuals engage in the

primary appraisal of collective events as relevant to the concerns and goals tied to their group

membership (for reviews, see Parkinson, Fischer, & Manstead, 2005; Smith & Mackie, 2015;

van Zomeren et al., 2012) As Iyer and Leach (2008) pointed out, collective events such as group victimization need not be experienced at the inter-group level Individuals’ subject position may

be that of an individual or a group member And, the object of their appraisal may be another

individual, their in-group, or an out-group (e.g., the perpetrator group)

Thus, as the first stage of processing, primary appraisal sets the basic parameters for one’s subsequent appraisal of an event like group victimization (see Scherer et al., 2001) To

begin to interpret its meaning, one begins to frame the event as relevant to the self (as an

individual or group member) and to the most salient or important concerns for that level of self

Consider the possible primary appraisals one could make regarding a memorial for a genocide that one’s grandparents survived, for instance As an individual, one may not view oneself as a

direct victim and yet still appraise the event as relevant to one’s concern for how one’s group

was, and is, treated fairly in the world Thus, the primary appraisal here is about a concern for

unfair harm to one’s group and also to oneself, and one’s loved ones, as members of the

in-group In addition, one may appraise the memorial as relevant to one’s interpersonal relationship with one’s grandparent and one’s intra-group relationship to the community of victims The

relevant concerns and goals here may be benefits to solidarity and shared understanding within

the family and larger group, so as to never forget the victimization and to remain vigilant to

similar events so that coordinated action is possible if needed

In this way, primary appraisal sets the stage for the interpretation and coping potential

appraisals that happen in secondary appraisal To appraise a genocide memorial as mainly

relevant to one’s concerns about past and future unfair harm to one’s group is to set the

parameters for what one’s emotions can be about The appraisal of harm to one’s goal to be

treated fairly determines that the emotional experience should be unpleasant (Lazarus, 1991;

Scherer et al., 2001) In contrast, the primary appraisal of a genocide memorial as relevant to one’s solidarity and shared understanding with family and in-group members in a way that

benefits one should be experienced as pleasant emotionally As I will explain below, the more

precise emotion likely to be felt about these primary appraisals can only be predicted by knowing

the secondary appraisals of interpretation and coping potential that add sinew to the skeleton

structure of meaning given by the more rudimentary primary appraisal

The process of primary appraisal also allows for the possibility that some individuals, or

sub-groups, may not appraise their group’s victimization as relevant to them as individuals or as

group members Or, individuals may appraise their group’s victimization as irrelevant to any of

the concerns that matter to them For example, younger generations can appraise the

victimization of prior generations as “old news” with little relevance to their identity or goals

This is a central benefit of using appraisal theory to analyze the victimization of groups: It is equally adept at conceptualizing individuals’ greater and lesser interest in the experience In this

way it can help explain who is most affected psychologically and who is least affected

Secondary Appraisal: Interpretation and Coping Potential

Primary appraisal is presumed to be logically necessary first step in appraisal because there is little reason to use one’s social and psychological resources to appraise an event if it is of

little relevance to (some level of) the self and to accompanying concerns But, of course, being

concerned is not enough to cause emotion, motivation, and action One must interpret what an

event means for the concerns at stake and determine what, if anything, can be done to protect or

advance one’s concerns This is the process of secondary appraisal The meaning aspect of it is

the most elaborate conceptualization of appraisal and typically seen as most central to how an

event is experienced emotionally The doing aspect of secondary appraisal is typically referred to

as focused on the appraisal of one’s coping potential

Interpretation Although the primary appraisal of harm or benefit to one’s concerns or

goals determines whether an event is experienced as pleasant (benefit) or unpleasant (harm),

appraisal theory argues that several key interpretations must be made to produce specific

emotion These appraisals include certainty, norm compatibility, sense of control (Scherer et al.,

2001) However, it seems that together the appraisals of the cause or initiator of the event (i.e.,

“agency”) and its (il)legitimacy determine a (moralized) judgement of blame that has an outsize

role in determining the meaning one gives an event (Lazarus, 1991) For example, a great deal of

work on group victimization argues that anger is a common response because group members

often appraise outgroups as to blame for an illegitimate (unfair, undeserved, unacceptable)

victimization of one’s ingroup (van Zomeren et al., 2012) Obviously, blaming one’s ingroup for

its victimization is to give it very different meaning that is more likely to produce a less

antagonistic and active dysphoria, such as shame

Emotion Emotion is the phenomenological experience and embodiment of the meaning

one gives an event (see Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, 1991) Or, to paraphrase Sartre (1948), emotion

is the way we choose to live our unfolding relation to the world It is a particular way of “being”

in the situation Appraisal theory formalizes this way of thinking by conceptualizing each

emotion as the result of a unique combination of appraisals that together form a semiotic gestalt

(see Arnold, 1960) Lazarus (1991) called this the “core relational theme” of emotion Thus, part

of the reason that emotion concepts are useful tools for analyzing the social psychology of

experience is that each emotion concept refers to a specific pattern of appraisal that recapitulates the meaning one gives one’s relationship to the world (Leach & Tiedens, 2004)

For instance, to describe someone as sad about group victimization is to describe them as

interpreting an unfortunate event as a serious, potentially irrevocable loss (Lazarus, 1991) As

such, the emotional experience of sadness is an inwardly directed lament, which suggests that one sees little to be done to improve one’s (harmed) relationship to the world As such, sadness

seems most likely in cases where violence has been committed by obscure or absconded

perpetrators who are unlikely to be held to account Quite different from the states of depression,

abjection, or nihilism often attributed to victims, sadness relies on an active appraisal of

victimization as difficult or impossible to undo (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989) With a