Towards a Conceptual Integration of Collective Victimization Beliefs and Their Variation Within and Across Contexts: A Q Methodology Study in Five Communities

Abstract

Although social psychological research on how people understand collective victimization often examines comparisons between groups’ suffering, studies on related concepts (e.g., collective trauma) suggest numerous other relevant beliefs. The present article aimed to integrate diverse collective victimization beliefs and contribute to their conceptual analysis. Utilizing Q methodology, we examined how 60 collective victimization beliefs statements combine into holistic belief patterns. We analysed variation and commonalities in shared beliefs between and within groups, examining five contexts with different historical or ongoing collective victimization experiences and present‐day group positions. Our study included purposively sampled Kurdish American immigrants (Study 1, N = 51), Black Americans (Study 2, N = 47), Jewish Americans (Study 3, N = 48), Hungarians (Study 4, N = 68) and Koreans (Study 5, N = 50). The analysis revealed between two and five viewpoints per context, varying across the following theoretical dimensions: temporality (past or present suffering), power (ingroup strength or vulnerability), group focus (implications for intergroup or intragroup dynamics), locus of strategies (symbolic or material) for addressing ingroup victimization, and perceived importance of ingroup victimization (centrality or decentring victimization). A second‐order analysis identified commonalities in viewpoints across contexts, suggesting partial generalization. Overall, this research makes theoretical contributions to the literature on collective victimization beliefs, provides insights into their ecological validity, and demonstrates that collective victimization beliefs are nuanced, complex and contextualized.