Canada’s history with Indigenous peoples: do reminders of ingroup wrongs and ingroup identification influence collective guilt, moral shame, and reparation intentions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests historical accounts of past harm committed by an ingroup toward an outgroup \nhave elicited emotions such as collective guilt and moral shame. The present experiment \nexamined whether an explicit account regarding abuse committed against Indigenous peoples in \nthe residential school system elicited collective guilt, moral shame, and reparation endorsement. \nIngroup identification was assessed as a potential moderator of these predicted effects. 108 nonIndigenous students from Laurentian University were randomly assigned to excerpts derived \nfrom high school history textbooks were explicit or evasive and completed self-report \nquestionnaires. Results showed ingroup identification was a significant moderator whereby high \ningroup identifiers demonstrated greater levels of guilt and monetary support for Indigenous \nCanadians when exposed to the explicit text. Low ingroup identifiers had greater shame when \nexposed to an evasive text. Therefore, ingroup identification had an important influence on the \nmoral emotions and reparation intentions following exposure to an explicit vs. evasive account of \ntheir group’s past wrongdoing. Implications are discussed in relation to promoting a sense of \nresponsibility and intentions to repair ingroup wrongs, and how this might be facilitated in an \neducational context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".