Tensions between collective‐self forgiveness and political repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Faced with collective guilt, perpetrator groups may seek collective‐self forgiveness. However, does this diminish their support for political repair? Advancing the concept of collective‐self forgiveness, we distinguish between end‐state collective‐self forgiveness as restored moral identity and two processes: pseudo collective‐self forgiveness as defensive downplaying and genuine collective‐self forgiveness as ‘working through’ the ingroup's guilt. In three studies, non‐Indigenous Australians ( N = 369, 800 and 785) were surveyed about currently debated constitutional changes for the recognition and empowerment of Indigenous Australians. Pseudo and genuine collective‐self forgiveness were positively related to end‐state collective‐self forgiveness. Pseudo and end‐state were negative, but genuine collective‐self forgiveness positively, related to support for repair and truth telling. Participants identifying with both Australians and Indigenous Australians more strongly endorsed genuine collective‐self forgiveness. The results suggest a pathway for perpetrator group members to balance identity needs with commitment to repair, but highlight drawbacks of seeing collective‐self forgiveness as an end‐state objective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".