War, genocide, oppression and other forms of violence affecting entire communities can leave a lasting impact on how people think. However, the consequences can vary considerably. In some communities, distrust and support for retaliation may increase, while in others, solidarity, resistance or reconciliation may come to the fore. 

These different responses are examined in a recent study published in Nature Reviews Psychology, in which the authors bring together previous psychological research into a unified framework. At the heart of their appraisal-coping model is the idea that people first interpret what the harm suffered by their community means and then assess whether their group has sufficient resources to deal with the situation. This process can shape their emotions and influence which courses of action they consider possible. 

When members of a community believe they have the strength, unity and ability to act, they are more likely to view the situation as a manageable challenge. For example, if members of a disadvantaged community believe that collective action can help change an unjust rule, they are more likely to participate in protests, advocacy or other community initiatives. Hope, anger over injustice and belief in the group’s collective efficacy are also associated with a greater likelihood of collective action. By contrast, fear, hopelessness and a lack of control are more frequently linked to withdrawal, distrust or defensive responses. 

For example, the memory of the Holocaust among Israeli Jews can give rise to four different interpretations of “Never Again”: never again should we be defenceless victims; never again should we abandon members of our own community; never again should we become perpetrators; and never again should we stand by while others suffer. These interpretations can lead to different social and political attitudes. 

“These differences are also reflected in relations between groups. When a community perceives its suffering as unique and more severe than that of others, hostile attitudes may become more pronounced among its members. However, when people recognise parallels between their own community’s experiences and those of other victimised groups, they are more likely to show empathy towards others and support solidarity and reconciliation,” explains Zsolt Péter Szabó, co-author of the study and researcher at Corvinus University. 

According to the authors, the findings highlight the need to develop measurement methods that can more accurately capture how these beliefs change across countries, historical contexts and generations. This is particularly important because perceptions of collective trauma may be linked to psychological well-being, community resilience, social conflicts and the prospects for reconciliation.