Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior

Abstract

Past research has shown that people are inconsistent when making predictions about emotions and moral behaviors following their own wrongdoing. However, it is less clear how people react when they did not cause the wrongdoing themselves but the group or collective they associate with. The present paper investigates people's reactions to collective wrongdoing and the question (1) whether the prediction of the experience of group-based guilt is related to actual moral behaviors and (2) whether this prediction is reliable. In three studies, we analyze collective guilt and subsequent behavioral reactions. Study 1 involved real academic situations, varying the kind of unfair treatment of others. A priori, participants overestimated their own subsequent experiences of collective guilt as well as their moral behavior. With respect to actual responses, experienced guilt was the strongest predictor of behavioral reactions, while imagined guilt, in-group identification and satisfaction did not significantly predict responses. Moreover, participants also reacted more to the direct harm caused by their group to others than to unjustified privileges granted to others. Study 2 fully replicated these results and showed relative stability in the predictions of collective guilt. Study 3 compared the responses by participants of the previous two studies with their responses 5 years later, indicating high stability of the observed effects over time. Also, we observed that making repeated predictions after experiencing the guilt-eliciting situation did not improve the accuracy of our participants' predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for self-predictions, behavioral and affective forecasting of collective emotions, and for common assessment methods of guilt by hypothetical vignettes.