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

191 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 192 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 193 (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 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 194 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] 195 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 196 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) 197 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 long-standing consequences ‘become elements in the victim’s personality’ 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 198 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) 199 “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 200 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, 211 undermine its quite concrete definition in appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) As with the terms victimization and trauma, threat should be reserved for an actual experience of having one’s resources to cope overwhelmed by the demands of victimization or other events Events are better described as potential threats, if they pose serious demands that seem likely to overwhelm most people in most circumstances To know whether individuals are experiencing an actual state of threat, or challenge, we must analyze how they appraise the diverse demands they may face and the variety of resources which they may call upon If analysts wish to heed appraisal theory’s call to put human agency at the heart of analysis, coping potential must be assessed, rather than assumed And, as appraisal is continuous, coping potential is a dynamic interpretation that can change moment to moment (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) If appraised coping potential is stable, this stability is the result of continuity in active interpretation According to appraisal theory, stability in appraisal does not the result from the absence of activity or from passivity Stability results from repeated activity Coping Effort: The Many Ways of Coping According to appraisal theory, the stages of primary and secondary appraisal are followed by effort at coping (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer et al., 2001) Coping effort is what one tries to to meet the demands of the situation given the resources at one’s disposal (see Figure 7.1) Thus, coping effort is the translation of coping potential into plans for action It is called an effort at 212 coping because it is also seen as a momentary act that is appraised for its effectiveness and thus may change Indeed, effort does not always spell success Nevertheless, effort should be understood on its own terms as the expending of one’s resources to attempt to define one’s relationship to the world in preferable ways Too often in social psychology, effort at coping with group victimization has been dismissed as unimportant because it did not ultimately lead to obvious outcomes like the end of victimization or of restitution (for a discussion, see Leach & Livingstone, 2015) Such outcomes, however, are difficult for victims to achieve Thus, a careful analysis must separate the effort at coping—which is more under the victim’s control—from the outcome of coping effort, which is determined by a complex set of factors that extend well beyond the victim (e.g., the perpetrator, third parties, systems of justice, political strategy) What one wishes to with one’s appraisals and emotions can be quite different from what one can or should in a world that may not facilitate one’s wishes (Leach, 2016; Parkinson et al., 2005) Indeed, defining research on anger by Averill (1982) showed that the strong impulse to confront others about injustice was typically modulated by the context of the injustice, the relationship to the target of anger, and the expected consequences of expressing anger and pursuing confrontation Thus, as with all coping, effort at coping with collective victimization is best understood as an active and dynamic process that is continually responding to changing challenges and to the effectiveness of prior coping 213 As Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) influential analysis established, coping effort is generally understood as being either approach- or avoidance-oriented and as being focused on the problem itself or on the emotion, or other psychological and social effects, caused by the problem (see Figure 7.2) Consistent with more general theory in psychology, states of threat are more likely to encourage avoidance-oriented coping effort whereas states of challenge are more likely to encourage approach-oriented coping effort (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Taylor & Stanton, 2007) From an appraisal theory perspective, there is nothing wrong (psychologically or morally) with making effort to avoid an event that is appraised as a threat because one does not believe that one possesses adequate resources to meet its likely overwhelming demands There is no shame in running from danger so that one may “live to fight another day.” Indeed, it may be the wisest course of action if survival is the primary concern or goal And, of course, survival is necessary to any possible future coping effort It is widely assumed in western psychology that problem-focused coping is best And, this is perhaps even more true in social psychological work on group victimization and other intergroup harm, as protest and other direct and active confrontation of the harm is often considered the best course of action (for discussions, see Leach & Livingstone, 2015; van Zomeren et al., 2012) In many instances, however, emotion-focused coping is the best course of action And, emotion-focused coping is sometimes necessary to pave the way for problem- 214 focused coping, and vice versa Thus, the best coping is that which best matches what is most likely to be effective for one’s concerns and goals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Taylor & Stanton, 2007) For example, being primarily concerned with the injustice of collective victimization may promote the approach-oriented problem-focused coping of exacting punishment through direct revenge or through appeal to appropriate authorities Being primarily concerned with the identity loss in a humiliating instance of victimization should promote a different form of coping, because it is aimed at addressing a different concern And, one’s emotion and coping effort will be determined by an appraisal of how to best translate one’s coping potential to coping effort [INSERT FIGURE 7.2 HERE] Although social psychological approaches to group victimization tend to focus on a fairly narrow range of behavioral responses (for a review, see Miller & Major, 2000; see also Hirschberger & Ein-Dor, this volume; Szabó, this volume), the concept of coping effort reinforces the more general assumption in appraisal theory that there are numerous ways to cope (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Taylor & Stanton, 2007) Indeed, there are numerous examples of each of the four broad types of coping shown in Figure 7.2 Avoidance-oriented emotion-focused coping includes denial, distracting oneself, and mentally disengaging Although all three of these ways of coping may seem unhealthy or counter-productive, managing one’s emotions by avoiding demands that one has few resources to deal with may be the best course of action until 215 person or situation factors enable a more empowered appraisal and thus greater problem-focused coping potential Conversely, the approach-oriented problem-focused coping effort of confrontation (as in protest, revenge, conflict) may be a poor choice if one is severely overmatched by an adversary A brave frontal assault on a citadel may feel good, but may risk sacrificing hard won resources that are not easily replaced and may thereby reduce one’s future coping potential in potentially catastrophic ways (see Fanon, 1967) The many ways to cope with group victimization, and all potential stressors, make it all the more important that coping effort is itself appraised for its effectiveness The best copers tend to be those that make their best effort to cope in the most promising way possible and then make an honest assessment of whether this effort has effectively and efficiently addressed their concerns and achieved their goals (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Taylor & Stanton, 2007) Effectively and efficient strategies should be continued with the requisite effort Ineffective and inefficient strategies should be abandoned in favor of alternatives that make the best use of the resources available Even the approach-oriented and problem-focused coping effort of protest must be honestly assessed to gauge its effectiveness and efficiency This is why van Zomeren et al.’s (2012) dynamic model of coping with group disadvantage specifies that the appraised effectiveness of protest can feedback into any of the prior stages: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, coping effort For instance, protest by a victimized group may reveal that the cause of 216 victimization is not the presumed agent, but some other actor Dynamic appraisal and coping calls for a re-appraisal of the secondary appraisal of who is responsible and the attendant updating of all appraisals to better calibrate appraisals of one’s coping potential with the newly identified agent As the ultimate aim of appraisal and coping is to best pursue one’s goals and address one’s concerns, dynamic re-appraisal is essential to providing oneself with the most accurate, up-to-date, and useful understanding of one’s ever-changing relationship to the world Conclusion Appraisal theory is a broad and wide-reaching perspective on the processes by which individuals and groups understand and navigate their relationship to an ever-changing world Given the central role given appraisal, it is a theory of socially-rooted interpretation and sociallygrounded being and action As a result of the theory’s roots in existentialism, it is a theory that emphasizes human freedom and agency, even in the face of severe subordination, brutal oppression, or apparent abjection Consistent with these meta-theoretical commitments, appraisal theory is an inherently dynamic approach which views these processes as unfolding over time in temporal sequences that are bi-directional via the process of re-appraisal Thus, any particular conceptualization or observation of an individual’s appraisal and coping with group victimization must necessarily be understood as a snapshot taken of a moment in time Like all snapshots, even the most complete-appearing picture is preceded and followed by moments that 217 may not be continuous That appraisal and coping can change moment to moment highlights the endless potential of human agency in making our psychological and social worlds what they are It also serves as a reminder that stability must be actively made Although the absence of change appears as the absence of activity, this cannot ever be true as a great deal of change is always required to keep things the same This is physics, and it is metaphysics Whether it is continued protest, continued acquiescence, or continued denial, continuity is achieved only through effort These features of appraisal theory enable it to offer concrete, formal definitions and ways of mobilizing central concepts in social psychology that are often used loosely and inconsistently in analyses of group victimization and many other topics Appraisal theory can guide our use of important concepts such as victimhood, trauma, threat, humiliation, protest and resistance, conflict and reconciliation In this way, appraisal theory holds a twin promise It enables very specific analyses of particular instances of group victimization in ways that embrace the diversity of experience and action possible And, it offers an integrative, over-arching framework by which we may use a common language to describe and analyze the diversity of experience and action in response to group victimization As far as I am aware, few existing approaches in psychology offer this twin promise By avoiding more narrow assumptions about what concerns are most important to people, or what constitutes a threat (to identity, existence, what have you), appraisal theory offers a genuinely abstract approach that can guide genuinely empirical 218 (qualitative or quantitative) analyses of group victimization that allow people to think, feel, and act for themselves It is, in this sense, a deeply (social) psychological theory 219 References Arnold, M B (1960) Emotion and personality (vols & 2) New York: Columbia University Press Averill, J R (1982) Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion New York: Springer-Verlag Atwoli, L., Stein, D.J., Koenen, K.C., & McLaughlin, K.A (2015) Epidemiology of posttraumatic stress disorder: prevalence, correlates and consequences Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 28, 307–311 doi:10.1097/YCO.000000000000016 Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A (2009) A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts International Review of the Red Cross, 91(874), 229-258 doi: 10.1017/S1816383109990221 Bilewicz, M., & Liu, J (2019, this volume) Collective victimhood as a form of adaptation: A world system perspective In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W B (2010) Social psychophysiology and embodiment In S T Fiske, D T Gilbert, & G Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed.) (pp 194–227) New York, NY: Wiley Bonanno, G A (2004) Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28 220 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20 Bonanno, G.A., Westphal, M., & Mancini, A.D (2011) Resilience to loss and potential trauma Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 511-535 doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy032210-104526 Bulhan, H.A (1985) Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression New York: Plenum Fanon, F (1967) Black skin, white masks New York, NY: Grove Wiedenfeld Ferguson, N., & Halliday, D (2019, this volume) Collective memory and the legacy of the troubles: Territoriality, identity and victimhood in Northern Ireland In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Frijda, N H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E (1989) Relations among emotion appraisal, and emotional action readiness Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212-228 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Hirschberger, G., & Ein-Dor, T (2019, this volume) A temporal account of collective victimization as existential threat: Reconsidering adaptive and maladaptive responses In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Iyer, A., & Leach, C.W (2008) Emotion in inter-group relations European Review of Social 221 Psychology, 19, 86-125 doi:10.1080/10463280802079738 Jogdand, J., Khan, S., & Reicher, S (2019, this volume) The context, content, and claims of humiliation in response to collective victimhood In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Kachanoff, F J., Wohl, M J A., & Taylor, D M (2019, this volume) Striking at the core: A unified framework of how collective victimhood affects basic psychological needs for relatedness competence and autonomy In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., & Yom Tov, L (2019, this volume) In the aftermath of historical trauma: Perceived moral obligations for current group members In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Lazarus, R S (1991) Emotion and adaption New York, NY: Oxford University Press Lazarus, R S., & Folkman, S (1984) Stress, appraisal and coping New York, NY: Springer Leach, C.W (2016) The meta-theory of examining emotion in social relationships Psychological Inquiry, 27, 113-116 doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1162129 Leach, C W., Brown, L M., & Worden, R E (2008) Ethnicity and identity politics Science, 32(3), 415-434 doi: 10.1016/B978-012373985-8.00063-5 Leach, C W., & Livingstone, A G (2015) Contesting the meaning of intergroup disadvantage: 222 Towards a psychology of resistance Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 614-632 doi: 10.1111/josi.12131 Leach, C W., & Tiedens, L Z (2004) “A world of emotion.” In L Z Tiedens & C.W Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp 1-16) New York: Cambridge University Press Mari, S., Bentrovato, D., Durante, F., & Wassermann, J (2019, this volume) Collective victimhood resulting from structural violence In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press McNeill, A., & Vollhardt, J R (2019, this volume) “We all suffered!” – The role of power in rhetorical strategies of inclusive victimhood and its consequences for intergroup relations In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Miller, C T., & Major, B (2000) Coping with stigma and prejudice In T F Heatherton, R E Kleck, M R Hebl, & J G Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp 243-272) New York: Guilford Ozer, E.J., Best, S.R., Lipsey, T.L., & Weiss, D.S (2003) Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, 129, 52–73 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.52 Parkinson, B., Fischer, A H., & Manstead, A S R (2005) Emotion in social relations 223 Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes New York, NY: Psychology Press Perez, M J., & Salter, P S (2019, this volume) A critical race reading of collective victimhood: The precarious case of Black Americans In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Reicher, S., & Ulusahin, Y (2019, this volume) Resentment and redemption: On the mobilisation of dominant group victimhood In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Sandoval, C (2000) Methodology of the oppressed Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press Sartre, J.P (1948) The emotions: Outline of a theory (trans B Frechtman) New York, NY: Philosophical Library Scherer, K R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T (Eds.) (2001) Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research New York: Oxford University Press Shnabel, N., Kahalon, R., Ullrich J., & Aydin, A L (2019, this volume) When two groups hurt each other: Understanding and reducing the negative consequences of collective victimhood in dual conflicts In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Smith, E.R., & Mackie, D.M (2015) Dynamics of group-based emotions: Insights from 224 intergroup emotions theory Emotion Review, 7, 349-354 doi: 10.1177/1754073915590614 Szabó, Z P (2019, this volume) Studied and understudied victim beliefs: What we have learned so far and what’s ahead In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Taylor, L., Štambuk, M., Čorkalo Biruški, D., & O’Driscoll, D (2019, this volume) Transgenerational transmission of collective victimhood through a developmental intergroup framework: The lasting power of group narratives of suffering In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Taylor, S.E., & Stanton, A.L (2007) Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 377-401 doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520 Tiedens, L.Z (1997) Optimism and revolt of the oppressed: A comparison of two Polish Jewish ghettos of World War II Political Psychology, 18, 45-69 doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00044 Twali, M S., Hameiri, B., Vollhardt, J R., & Nadler, A (2019, this volume) Experiencing acknowledgment versus denial of the ingroup’s collective victimization In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford 225 University Press van Zomeren, M., Leach, C.W., & Spears, R (2012) Protesters as “passionate economists”: A dynamic dual pathway model of coping with collective disadvantage Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 180–199 doi: 10.1177/1088868311430835 Vollhardt, J R (2012) Collective victimization In L Tropp (Ed.), Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp 136 – 157) New York, NY: Oxford University Press Vollhardt, J R (2019, this volume) Introduction to “The social psychology of collective victimhood”: Examining context, power, and diversity in experiences of collective victimization In J R Vollhardt (Ed.), The social psychology of collective victimhood New York: Oxford University Press Walker, I., & Smith, H J (2002) Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press WHO (2002) World report on violence and health Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization ... 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) 204 Thus, as the first stage of. ..192 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... how they appraise the diverse demands they may face and the variety of resources which they may call upon If analysts wish to heed appraisal theory’s call to put human agency at the heart of analysis,