Collette P Eccleston
email: ecclesto@psych.ucsb.edu

Brenda N Major

Attributions to Discrimination and Self-Esteem: The Role of Group Identification and Appraisals

This study tested the hypothesis that appraisals of discrimination (i.e. its perceived severity, global aspects, stability, and uncontrollability) mediate the relationship between attributions to discrimination and personal self-esteem. It also tested three models of how ethnic group identification is related to discrimination attributions, discrimination appraisals, and personal self-esteem. In a cross-sectional study of 160 Latino-American students, group identification was positively related to attributing ambiguous negative events to discrimination. Discrimination attributions were related to appraising discrimination as more global and severe. These latter appraisals, in turn, were related to lower self-esteem. No direct relationships were observed between self-esteem and either group identification or discrimination attributions. Results illustrate the importance of appraisals in understanding the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem.

keywords appraisals of discrimination, attributions to discrimination, self-esteem FOR members of stigmatized groups, the threat of being a target of prejudice or discrimination is a defining feature of daily life [START_REF] Crocker | Social stigma[END_REF][START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF]. Discrimination limits access to resources such as employment, income, housing, education, and medical care [START_REF] Braddock | How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: Research on labor market and institutional barriers[END_REF][START_REF] Cash | Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making[END_REF][START_REF] Neckerman | Hiring strategies, racial bias, and inner-city workers[END_REF][START_REF] Treiman | Women, work, and wages: Equal pay for jobs of equal value[END_REF], compromises physical well being [START_REF] Allison | Stress and oppressed category membership[END_REF][START_REF] Clark | Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model[END_REF], excludes individuals from many domains of social life (Major & Eccleston, 2005), and often exposes targets to physical violence [START_REF] Herek | The psychology of sexual prejudice[END_REF]. Hence, stigmatization and its accompanying prejudice and discrimination exert a substantial, negative impact on the quality of life of its targets.

Because self-esteem is at least partly dependent on social evaluations [START_REF] Cooley | Two major works: Social organization. Human nature and the social order[END_REF][START_REF] Mead | Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist[END_REF], inclusion [START_REF] Leary | Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem[END_REF], and the perception that one is valued by others [START_REF] Pyszczynski | Why do we need what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human social motivation[END_REF], many scholars assume that repeatedly being the target of prejudice and discrimination will result in lowered self-esteem and a poor self-concept (e.g. Allport, 1954Allport, /1979;;[START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Cartwright | Emotional dimensions of group life[END_REF]. For example, Cartwright argued, 'To a considerable extent, personal feelings of worth depend on the social evaluation of the group with which a person is identified. Self-hatred and feelings of worthlessness tend to arise from membership in underprivileged or outcast groups ' (1950; p. 440).

Reviews of the empirical literature, however, demonstrate that membership in a stigmatized group does not necessarily result in lower selfesteem [START_REF] Crocker | Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma[END_REF][START_REF] Twenge | Race, ethnicity, and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, including a commentary on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000)[END_REF]. Members of some groups that are chronic targets of prejudice and discrimination (e.g. African-Americans) have higher self-esteem on average compared to nonstigmatized groups (e.g. European Americans), whereas members of other devalued groups (e.g. Latino-Americans) report lower selfesteem on average compared to more valued groups [START_REF] Twenge | Race, ethnicity, and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, including a commentary on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000)[END_REF]. In addition, within stigmatized groups, some individuals have high self-esteem, whereas others do not [START_REF] Friedman | Psychological correlates of obesity: Moving to the next research generation[END_REF].

Because individuals who are targets of discrimination sometimes may not perceive it [START_REF] Crosby | The denial of personal discrimination[END_REF], recent research has focused on the relationship between perceptions of being a target of discrimination (rather than stigmatized group membership, per se) and selfesteem. Some scholars assert that perceiving the self as a victim of discrimination will have a direct, negative effect on self-esteem among members of stigmatized groups (e.g. Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Consistent with this view, several studies found that the more members of disadvantaged groups, such as African-Americans, gays, and women, believe that they or members of their group are victims of discrimination, the lower their self-esteem and psychological well-being [START_REF] Diaz | The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 US cities[END_REF][START_REF] Swim | Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies[END_REF].

Other scholars, in contrast, assert that attributing outcomes to discrimination can have a positive effect on personal self-esteem if it allows people to discount internal, stable, global aspects of self as causal [START_REF] Crocker | Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma[END_REF][START_REF] Dion | The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice[END_REF]. Consistent with this latter view, several experiments found a positive relationship between perceptions of discrimination and self-esteem, particularly when attributing negative events to discrimination leads to reduced self-blame (e.g. Major, Kaiser, & McCoy, 2003;[START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF]. Still other studies report no direct relationship between perceptions of discrimination and self-esteem among African-Americans [START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Brown | Measuring self-perceived racial and ethnic discrimination in social surveys[END_REF][START_REF] Crocker | Collective self-esteem and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students[END_REF][START_REF] Mendoza-Denton | Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African-American students' college experience[END_REF], and women, especially if individual differences in rejection sensitivity are controlled (Eccleston & Major, 2005).

These inconsistencies illustrate that not all individuals respond in the same way to perceived discrimination. Therefore it is important to identify personal and situational factors that affect the tendency to attribute negative events to discrimination, and the relationship between perceiving the self as a victim of discrimination and self-esteem (see [START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF]Major, McCoy, Kaiser, & Quinton, 2003 for reviews). This study applied a stress and coping framework [START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, appraisal, and coping[END_REF] to understand the relationship between perceptions of discrimination and self-esteem among members of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group (Latino-Americans).

Appraisals of discrimination

According to a stress and coping framework, perceiving oneself as a target of prejudice and/or discrimination is a potentially stressful life event (e.g. [START_REF] Clark | Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model[END_REF][START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF][START_REF] Miller | Coping with stigma and prejudice[END_REF]. Individuals' Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) emotional responses to this event are a function of how they cognitively appraise the act or event and the coping strategies they use to deal with the event if it is appraised as stressful [START_REF] Lazarus | Stress and emotion: A new synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, appraisal, and coping[END_REF]). An event is appraised as stressful to the extent that internal or external demands posed by the event are perceived as taxing the adaptive resources of the individual [START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, appraisal, and coping[END_REF]. Thus, an underlying premise of theories of stress and coping is that exposure to potentially stressful events does not necessarily lead to reduced well-being. The cognitive appraisal process gives meaning to events, and determines responses to those events. Cognitive appraisals are affected by characteristics of the individual (e.g. optimism, group identification), characteristics of the situation (e.g. presence or absence of social support), and characteristics of the stressor (e.g. controllability, proximity, predictability, severity) [START_REF] Kaiser | Expectations about the future and the emotional consequences of perceiving prejudice[END_REF][START_REF] Lazarus | Stress, appraisal, and coping[END_REF]McCoy & Major, 2003).

Research derived from learned helplessness theory [START_REF] Abramson | Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation[END_REF] suggests that several cognitive appraisals are particularly important predictors of psychological well-being in response to a negative life event. These include the extent to which the cause of a negative event is appraised as stable vs. unstable (i.e. likely to change or not), global vs. specific (i.e. likely to affect many or only a few aspects of one's life), severe vs. minor, and controllable or uncontrollable. Individuals who appraise the cause of negative events as more stable, global, severe, and uncontrollable are more likely to be depressed and have low selfesteem relative to those who appraise the cause as more unstable, specific, minor, and controllable [START_REF] Abramson | Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation[END_REF][START_REF] Seligman | Depressive attributional style[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor | Attributions, beliefs about control, and adjustment to breast cancer[END_REF]. If the cause of a negative event is limited to a specific situation, for example, individuals may avoid the situation or focus on aspects of his or her life not affected by the event, whereas when the cause of the negative event is widespread, it is more difficult to escape its influence (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Drawing upon the above literatures, we hypothesized that individuals vary in the extent to which they would regard discrimination as likely to affect many areas of their life (global), to have a severe impact on their lives (severe), as unlikely to change (stable), and as something they could personally control (controllable). Although researchers have speculated that appraisals of discrimination may be an important determinant of its affective consequences (e.g. Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002), to our knowledge, no research has directly assessed how individuals appraise discrimination or the implications of these appraisals for self-esteem.

Determinants of discrimination appraisals

A variety of factors are likely to influence the extent to which discrimination is appraised as stable, severe, global, or uncontrollable. Certainly, objective features of the discriminatory event influence these appraisals, as do past experiences with discrimination (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Characteristics of the specific situation (e.g. the presence or absence of other ingroup members) and of the individual (e.g. optimism) may also affect the extent to which discrimination is appraised as harmful. For example, [START_REF] Kaiser | Expectations about the future and the emotional consequences of perceiving prejudice[END_REF] found that compared to women low in dispositional optimism, highly optimistic women who read about pervasive sexism appraised it as less personally threatening, and had higher selfesteem. Furthermore, these threat appraisals mediated the interaction between optimism and experimental condition.

In this study we examined two factors as predictors of discrimination appraisals. First, we tested the hypothesis that people who tend to attribute ambiguous negative events to discrimination would also be more likely to appraise discrimination as global, harmful, severe, and uncontrollable. This hypothesis is based on evidence that members of stigmatized groups differ in the extent to which they expect to be targets of negative stereotypes and discrimination [START_REF] Mendoza-Denton | Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African-American students' college experience[END_REF][START_REF] Pinel | Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes[END_REF]. Individuals who expect to be rejected

Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination based on a stigmatized social identity pay more attention to subliminally presented information that is threatening to their social identity, are more distrustful of outgroup members, are more anxious in intergroup settings, and are more depressed compared to those lower in expectations of prejudice (Kaiser, Vick, & Major, in press;[START_REF] Lewis | Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms[END_REF][START_REF] Mendoza-Denton | Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African-American students' college experience[END_REF][START_REF] Pinel | Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes[END_REF]. Consistent with a stress and coping perspective, we hypothesized that individuals who tend to attribute ambiguous events to discrimination are vulnerable to lower self-esteem, to the extent that they also tend to appraise discrimination in more harmful ways. We did not predict a direct relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem.

Second, we examined group identification as a predictor of discrimination appraisals. In the current study we defined group identification in terms of the importance or centrality of the group to the self (e.g. [START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF]. Group identification plays a complex role in how members of stigmatized groups construe and cope with the predicament of being targets of prejudice. Group identification has been shown experimentally to increase the likelihood that individuals will attribute negative, attributionally ambiguous events to discrimination [START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF][START_REF] Operario | Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias[END_REF]. Experimentally induced perceptions of prejudice have also been shown to increase group identification, especially among those who are initially highly identified [START_REF] Jetten | Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream[END_REF]McCoy & Major, 2003). Finally, group identification has been shown to moderate the effects of experimentally induced perceptions of prejudice on self-esteem. [START_REF] Mccoy | Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice[END_REF] demonstrated that women low in gender identification had higher self-esteem if they received a negative evaluation from a sexist male than from a nonsexist male, whereas women high in group identification did not differ between conditions. In short, research has shown that group identification is an antecedent to and a consequence of perceived discrimination, and also moderates the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem. In addition, a direct positive relationship between group identification and self-esteem has frequently been observed (e.g. [START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Rowley | The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African American college and high school students[END_REF].

Given these differing ways in which group identification may affect perceived discrimination and self-esteem, we tested three different models of the relationships among group identification, discrimination attributions, appraisals, and self-esteem. The first Group Identity Lens model (see Figure 1) hypothesizes that group identification is positively associated with the tendency to attribute ambiguous negative events to discrimination. This model is based on evidence that people who are highly identified with their group are more likely to interpret ambiguous information through a group lens than are those less identified (e.g. [START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF]. Discrimination attributions, in turn, are predicted to be positively related to appraising discrimination as harmful (global, severe, stable, and uncontrollable). Harm appraisals, in turn, are hypothesized to be negatively related to self-esteem. No direct relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem is predicted, whereas a positive direct relationship between group identification and self-esteem is predicted.

The second Group Identity Resource model (see Figure 2) reverses the presumed causal order of the relationship between attributions to discrimination and group identification. This model is based on the theoretical perspective that perceiving discrimination leads individuals to identify more strongly with their group. Group identification, in turn, is predicted to be directly and positively related to self-esteem (Allport, 1954(Allport, /1979;;[START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF]. Discrimination attributions, in contrast, are predicted to be directly and negatively related to self-esteem [START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF]. The model shown in Figure 2 also tests the hypothesis that group identification is directly related to how discrimination is appraised. High group identification is hypothesized to be a resource that helps individuals cope in the face of discrimination [START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF]Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002;[START_REF] Sellers | The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination[END_REF].

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2)
For example, if highly identified individuals feel that other members of their group can be counted on for support, this may lead them to appraise discrimination as having a less severe impact on their lives. In this case group identification would be negatively related to appraising discrimination as harmful.

The third Group Identity Moderator model (see Figure 3) does not make assumptions about whether group identification is an antecedent or consequence of discrimination attributions.

Because experiments reveal that it can be both, this model assumes a bidirectional relationship. In addition, this model tests the interaction between group identification and discrimination attributions, as well as their main effects, as predictors of discrimination appraisals. This model is based on evidence that group identification moderates the effect of an experimental induction of perceived prejudice on selfesteem, and does so via its impact on appraisals of prejudice as threatening to the self (McCoy & Major, 2003, Experiment 2). The Group Identity Moderator model further predicts that group identification, discrimination attributions, and their interaction are directly and negatively related to discrimination appraisals, which in turn are directly related to self-esteem. Thus discrimination appraisals are predicted to mediate the relationships between group identification, discrimination attributions, and their interaction and self-esteem. As in the prior models, the more individuals appraise discrimination as global, severe, stable, and uncontrollable, the lower their self-esteem is predicted to be.

Overview of current study

Latino-American students were asked to consider five attributionally ambiguous events and to indicate the probability that each event,

Attributions to Discrimination

Harmful

Appraisals

Self-esteem Group Identification

Attributions to Discrimination

Harmful Appraisals

Self-esteem Group Identification if it had happened to them, could have been due to prejudice based on their ethnicity. Responses were averaged across events to yield a measure of discrimination attributions. Participants then were asked to assume that each of the negative events was indeed caused by discrimination, and to indicate the uncontrollability, stability, globality, and severity of that cause. These were summed across scenarios to yield four types of discrimination appraisals. Measures of ethnic group identity and global self-esteem were also assessed. Three different models of the relationships among discrimination attributions, discrimination appraisals, group identification, and self-esteem were tested.

Method

Participants

Participants were 41 male and 119 female undergraduates at the University of California, Santa Barbara who participated in partial fulfillment of a requirement for the introductory psychology course. All students who completed all the primary measures of interest and who categorized themselves as Latino/Hispanic were included in this study (N = 160). Approximately 17% of Latino students were immigrants who had lived in the United States for between 6 and 20 years (M = 13.42). Participants' ages ranged from 17 to 22 (M = 18.65).

Procedures and measures

Study measures were included in a larger packet of questionnaires given to students at the beginning of the academic quarter. The order of measures was randomized within each packet, except that all participants completed the demographic questionnaire before all other questionnaires.

Discrimination attributions

To measure individual differences in the tendency to attribute ambiguous events to discrimination, participants read five ambiguous scenarios, each of which could reasonably have been caused by ethnic prejudice (see Table 1). These items were taken from a 10-item scale constructed by [START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF]. Due to time and space constraints, the five items most relevant to a college sample were selected. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each situation was due to ethnic prejudice on a scale

Attributions to Discrimination

ranging from 0 (due to factors other than prejudice) to 100 (completely due to prejudice). Responses were averaged across the five scenarios to yield a measure of discrimination attribution style (alpha = .89).

Discrimination appraisals

In order to assess appraisals of the harmfulness of discrimination, we next asked participants to imagine that each of the five scenarios about which they had made judgments concerning prejudice was definitely caused by discrimination based on their ethnicity. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the cause, discrimination, 'is something that I can personally control' (controllability appraisal), 'is unlikely to change' (stability appraisal), 'will affect many areas of my life' (globality appraisal), and 'will have a severe impact on my life' (severity appraisal). Each judgment was made on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much). We computed a score for each type of appraisal by averaging across participants' appraisals of discrimination for each of the five scenarios. We reverse-scored the controllability appraisal items so that high scores reflected the extent to which discrimination was uncontrollable. The coefficient alpha for the uncontrollability appraisal was .81, the stability appraisal .80, the globality appraisal .87, and the severity appraisal .89.

Group identification

We assessed the extent to which participants viewed their ethnic group as an important aspect of the self, using [START_REF] Luhtanen | A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity[END_REF] four-item Identity scale. Participants rated the extent to which four statements were true of them on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much). For example, 'The ethnic group I belong to is an important reflection of who I am'. The alpha was .81.

Personal self-esteem

We assessed self-esteem with the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory [START_REF] Rosenberg | Conceiving the self[END_REF]. Participants rated the extent to which each of 10 statements (e.g. 'I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others') was true of them on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much). The alpha was .85.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among measured variables are presented in Tables 1 and2. Averaged across situations and participants, participants rated the probability that the events in the scenarios were due to discrimination as 36.01%. Participants varied greatly, however, in their estimates that discrimination was the cause of the events described (observed range = 0-100). On average, participants saw the discrimination encountered in the scenarios as uncontrollable (M = 3.82), moderately stable (M = 3.14), restricted rather than global (M = 2.31), and as not very severe (M = 1.99).

Correlations among measures

Inspection of the zero-order correlations in Table 2 reveals that as expected, discrimination attributions were unrelated to self-esteem (r = .01). Ethnic group identification also was unrelated to self-esteem (r = .10). Discrimination attributions and group identification were positively and significantly correlated (r = .33).

We expected that the four types of appraisals would be positively related to each other. However, the uncontrollability appraisal was unrelated to any of the other appraisals (see Table 2). Furthermore, although the stability appraisal was significantly positively related to the globality and severity appraisals, the correlations were modest (r = .36 and .30 respectively). The severity and globality appraisals, in contrast, were very strongly related (r = .89). Based on these correlations, we combined the globality and severity appraisals to form a composite globality/severity appraisal measure. We examined the implications of the controllability and stability appraisals independently of this composite globality/severity appraisal.

Model testing

We tested models using path analyses techniques. Path analyses were conducted using Amos software [START_REF] Arbuckle | Amos user's guide[END_REF] and maximum likelihood estimation. This sample size (N = 160) was adequate for testing our proposed models. Model fit was assessed with a joint consideration of the chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square statistic tests the hypothesis that the covariance matrix implied by the model is equal to the observed covariance matrix. Adequate model fit is evidenced by a nonsignificant chi-square. However, the chi-square test is strongly influenced by sample size. Therefore, we included two additional fit indices. CFI measures the degree to which the hypothesized model fits the data better than the independence model. Values range from 0 to 1, with values greater than .90 considered adequate fit, and greater than .95 good fit. RMSEA assesses how the hypothesized model, with optimally chosen parameters would approximate the population covariance matrix. Smaller values indicate better fit, with values less than .08 indicating adequate fit, and less than .05 good fit.

We first tested the Group Identity Lens model shown in Figure 1. 1 This model predicts that individuals who are highly identified with their ethnic group will be more likely to attribute ambiguous situations to discrimination. In turn, a discrimination attribution style is positively related to appraising these events as harmful (uncontrollable stable, and global/severe). 2 Appraising discriminatory events as harmful, in turn, is negatively related to self-esteem. In addition, identification with one's ethnic group is predicted to be directly and positively related to self-esteem. The model is shown in Figure 4 with standardized parameter estimates. The model fits the data well ( 2 (6, 160) = 2.24, ns; CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00). As predicted, Latinos who were highly identified with their ethnic group were more likely to attribute ambiguous negative events as due to prejudice (␤ = .33, p < . 01). In turn, attributing these events to discrimination was positively related to appraising discrimination as more global/severe (␤ = .36, p < . 01), and more stable (␤ = .19, p < . 05), but not more uncontrollable (␤ = .00). Appraising discrimination as more global/severe was negatively related to self-esteem (␤ = -.18, p <.05), but neither appraising discrimination as uncontrollable (␤ = .10) nor stable (␤ = .08) was significantly related to self-esteem. There was a marginally significant positive relationship between group identification and self-esteem (␤ = .13, p <.10).

Group

Next, we tested the Group Identity Resource model shown in Figure 2. According to this model, discrimination attributions are positively related to group identification. Higher group identification, in turn, is negatively related to appraising discrimination as harmful. In turn, harm appraisals are negatively related to self-esteem. The model also predicts that group identification is directly positively related to self-esteem, and that discrimination attributions are directly negatively related to selfesteem. The model is shown in Figure 5 with standardized parameter estimates. The model did not fit the data well ( 2 (5, 160) = 18.62, p < .01; CFI = .76, RMSEA = .13). There was a positive and significant path from attributions to discrimination to group identification (␤ = .33, p < .01). However, contrary to the hypothesized model, there was no direct relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem (␤ = .02). In addition, the only significant path from group identification to appraisals (global/severe appraisals) was positive rather than negative (␤ = .19, p < . 01). That is, identifying highly with the group was related to viewing discrimination as more, rather than less harmful. Neither the path from

Attributions to Discrimination Stable Appraisal

Uncontrollable Appraisal

Self-esteem Group Identification

Global/Severe Appraisal group identification to uncontrollability (␤ = -.07) nor the path from group identification to stability appraisals (␤ = .11) was significant. As in the previous model, the global/severe appraisal was negatively related to self-esteem (␤ = -.19, p < .05), but the stable (␤ = .08) and the uncontrollable (␤ = .09) appraisals were not. Finally, the direct relationship from group identification to self-esteem was positive, but not significant (␤ = .13). Third, we tested the Group Identity Moderator model shown in Figure 3. This model predicts that over and above the main effects of group identification and discrimination attributions on self-esteem, the interaction between these two variables predicts self-esteem via their impact on appraising discrimination as harmful. The model is depicted in Figure 6 with standardized parameter estimates. The model fits the data well ( 2 (7, 160) = 9.404, ns; CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05). Discrimination attributions were positively and significantly related to appraising discrimination as stable (␤ = .16, p < .05), and the globality/severity appraisal (␤ = .35, p < .01), but were unrelated to appraisals of uncontrollability (␤ = .03). Group identification was not significantly related to any of the appraisals. However, the interaction between attributions to discrimination and group identification was a marginally significant predictor of the globality/severity appraisals (␤ = -.13, p = .07). The nature of the interaction is such that the positive relationship between making discrimination attributions and appraising discrimination as global/severe is stronger for individuals low in group identification (␤ = .49, p = <.01) compared to those high in group identification (␤ = .22, p < .01). This interaction was unrelated to the uncontrollability (␤ = .02), and stability appraisals (␤ = .06). As in the previous models, appraising discrimination as global/severe was negatively related to selfesteem (␤ = -.16, p < .05), but appraising discrimination as uncontrollable and stable were not related to self-esteem.

Discussion

This study applied a stress and coping framework to understand the relationship between Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2)

Attributions to Discrimination

Stable Appraisal Uncontrollable Appraisal

Self-esteem Group Identification

Global/Severe Appraisal .07

attributing ambiguous events to discrimination and personal self-esteem. According to this framework, the psychological impact of potentially stressful events such as discrimination depends in part upon how individuals cognitively appraise those events [START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF].

Cognitive appraisals vary as a function of characteristics of the person and the event. We considered four types of appraisals of discrimination: its globality, stability, controllability, and severity. In addition, we examined the tendency to attribute ambiguous events to discrimination and group identification as predictors of discrimination appraisals. Because group identification has been shown to play such a complex role in the relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem (e.g. [START_REF] Jetten | Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream[END_REF][START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF]McCoy & Major, 2003), we tested three different models that varied in the hypothesized role of group identification. Two of the tested models fit our data well. The Group Identity Lens model predicts that group identification shapes how individuals explain ambiguous events, and that these appraisals, in turn, shape self-esteem. Consistent with this model, individuals who were highly identified with their ethnic group were more likely to attribute the cause of ambiguous negative events to discrimination. In turn, a discriminatory attribution style was positively related to appraising discrimination as more stable, severe, and global. Appraising discrimination as more global and severe was negatively related to self-esteem. Neither attributions to discrimination nor group identification was directly related to self-esteem; both were only indirectly related to self-esteem via their relationship to harmful appraisals.

The Group Identity Moderator model also fits our data well. This model predicts that group identification interacts with discrimination attribution style to predict appraisals of discrimination, and through these appraisals, self-esteem. Tests of the model revealed that the interaction between group identification and attributions was marginally significant as a predictor of appraising discrimination as global and severe. Follow up analyses revealed that discrimination attribution style was a stronger predictor of appraising discrimination as global/severe among individuals low in group identification compared to those high in group identification. Appraising discrimination as global/severe, in turn, was negatively related to self-esteem. Although we do not wish to make too much of a marginally significant interaction, this provocative pattern is consistent with one observed by [START_REF] Sellers | The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination[END_REF]. This study demonstrated that endorsement of a nationalist ideology (an aspect of African-American racial identity that emphasizes the uniqueness of being African-American) moderates the relationship between perceived discrimination and psychological distress. Specifically, individuals with lower levels of endorsement of the nationalist ideology were more distressed by discrimination than those with higher levels of endorsement, suggesting that higher levels of a nationalist ideology buffered individuals against the negative impact of perceiving discrimination. Combined with the current study, this suggests that discrimination attributions may differentially affect the self-esteem of individuals who are high and low in group identification because they differ in the extent to which they appraise discrimination as harmful to the self.

It is not possible to statistically test whether the Group Identity Lens model is a better fit to the data than the Group Identity Moderator model. These equivalent models suggest that there are multiple valid theoretical arguments concerning the role group identification plays in understanding the relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem.

We did not find support for a Group Identity Resource model. According to this model, attributing negative events to discrimination leads to an increase in group identification. Group identification, because it is a resource, should be associated with appraising discrimination as less harmful. This model further predicts that discrimination attributions are directly and negatively related to self-esteem, whereas group identification is directly and positively related to self-esteem. This model did not fit our data well. Although attributions to discrimination were significantly positively related to group identification, group identification was positively, rather than negatively, related to harmful appraisals. There was no direct relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem or group identification and self-esteem.

Discrimination attributions, appraisals and self-esteem

Our data are consistent with other published findings in highlighting the complexity of the relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem. There was no direct relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem. Rather, the relationship was indirect. Individuals who attributed ambiguous events to discrimination also believed that discrimination would have a severe negative impact on many aspects of their lives. This belief, in turn, was associated with lower personal self-esteem.

A unique aspect of our methodology is that we asked participants to consider five specific attributionally ambiguous situations and to indicate the probability that each event, if it happened to them, could have been due to discrimination. This approach to measuring attributions to discrimination differs from studies in which respondents are asked to indicate the extent (or frequency) with which they have been targets or victims of prejudice in the past, e.g. 'I consider myself a person who has been deprived of opportunities because of my gender' (Schmitt et al., 2002). Such self-reports of frequency of being a victim of discrimination reflect not only attributions for events, but also the frequency (or severity) of prior exposure to objectively discriminatory events. That is, these measures confound actual exposure to discrimination with attributions for negative events. We regard selfperceptions of past discrimination as conceptually and methodologically distinct from causal explanations provided for specific events (see [START_REF] Major | Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances[END_REF] for a discussion of this issue). A recent study illustrates the importance of this distinction. [START_REF] Brown | Measuring self-perceived racial and ethnic discrimination in social surveys[END_REF] asked 586 Black respondents living in the Detroit metropolitan area directly if they had ever been treated badly or unfairly because of race or ethnicity; 67% Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) reported affirmatively. When asked whether they had ever experienced any of six different forms of unfair treatment, and if so, what the main reason for the mistreatment was, 'only' 50% of Black respondents who had experienced one or more of these events, attributed it to their race or ethnicity. The concordance between these two types of measures was moderate (r = .47) and the measures were differentially related to well-being. Our study addresses the relationship between self-esteem and the tendency to make attributions to discrimination rather than the relationship between self-esteem and prior exposure to discrimination.

We expected that appraisals of uncontrollability, stability, severity, and globality would be positively related to each other and that each would be negatively related to self-esteem. Surprisingly however, appraisals of the uncontrollability of discrimination were unrelated to the other appraisals. Furthermore neither appraising discrimination as uncontrollable nor appraising it as stable was related to lower selfesteem. One possible explanation for this finding is that beliefs about controllability and stability are more relevant with respect to appraisals of the event rather than appraisals of the cause of the event. Indeed, most of the participants in our study saw discrimination as quite uncontrollable and stable. In retrospect, given the history of racial discrimination in American society, the belief that racial discrimination is unlikely to change and is something over which the individual has little control is certainly reasonable. It may be the case that these beliefs are part of the collective representation of stigmatized ethnic groups, such as Latinos, and widely held. As a result, these appraisals may not explain intragroup variability in self-esteem. It is also possible that there was something about these five instances of discrimination in particular that made these appraisals irrelevant to self-esteem. More research is needed on appraisals of discrimination to explore these issues.

Group identification

As predicted, we found a positive association between group identification and attributions to prejudice. The idea that group identification is an antecedent to discrimination attributions is consistent with the claim that individuals for whom the group is an important part of the self are more likely to interpret ambiguous events through the lens of group membership, and be alert to the possibility of unfair treatment based on their group membership [START_REF] Crocker | Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma[END_REF][START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup behavior[END_REF]. It is also consistent with prior experimental evidence showing that individuals highly identified with their group are more likely to attribute ambiguous negative events to discrimination [START_REF] Major | Attributions to discrimination and self esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity[END_REF][START_REF] Operario | Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias[END_REF]. This positive association is also consistent, however, with the idea that group identification increases in response to discrimination attributions. That is, people may turn to the ingroup as a coping strategy to deal with perceived prejudice (e.g. Allport, 1954Allport, /1979;;[START_REF] Branscombe | Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2) identification and well-being[END_REF]. Experiments have shown that individuals exposed to discrimination against their group become more identified with their group, at least if they are highly identified initially [START_REF] Jetten | Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream[END_REF]McCoy & Major, 2003).

Because our data are correlational and crosssectional, we cannot make any claims about causal sequence. However, our data provide mixed support for the idea that group identification serves as a resource for those who perceive themselves as victims of discrimination. Tests of the Group Identity Moderator revealed a trend such that high group identification attenuated the negative impact of discrimination attributions on appraising discrimination as global and severe. This finding suggests that group identification may confer some benefits to stigmatized individuals who attribute negative outcomes to discrimination. However, we did not observe a direct positive relationship between group identification and self-esteem.

These seemingly conflicting findings within the same data set highlights the complex role that group identification plays in understanding the relationship between attributions to discrimination and self-esteem. It seems likely that group identification may have both beneficial

Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination and adverse consequences for members of groups who face discrimination. On the one hand, identifying with the group may lead individuals to be more vigilant for signs of discrimination. On the other hand, among individuals who attribute outcomes to discrimination, group identification may serve as a resource. The relationship between group identification and self-esteem in the face of prejudice may also differ across time; group identification may produce an initial, temporary increase in vulnerability in response to threat, but identifying with the group also provides emotional and tangible support, and hence resilience, as time goes on. The methodology employed in the current study did not allow us to investigate all these possibilities, but it would be useful if future studies did.

The relationship between group identification, perceptions of discrimination, and selfesteem may also differ as a function of how group identification is defined. Group identification, as we have defined it here, refers to the importance of the group to self-concept. However, group identification also includes the individual's feelings about the group, and may even extend to include ideologies [START_REF] Sellers | The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination[END_REF]. These components, although related, are theoretically and empirically distinct and differentially related to important outcomes [START_REF] Ellemers | Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity[END_REF]. McCoy & Major (2003) for example, found that importance of the group was negatively related to self-esteem in the presence of discrimination against the ingroup, whereas liking for the group was unrelated to selfesteem. It would be useful if future research specifically investigates how these closely related constructs influence the relationship between perceptions of discrimination and selfesteem.

Limitations and conclusions

Conclusions that can be drawn from this study are limited by its correlational, self-report, cross-sectional design. Although we tested theoretical models that posit a causal ordering among variables, our data cannot speak to causal relationships. Nonetheless, this study illustrates that to understand the relationship between attributions to discrimination and selfesteem, it is important to know how individuals appraise the significance of discrimination for their well-being, as well as how much they identify with the group that is a target of discrimination.

Notes

1. The full variance-covariance matrix for all models is available upon request from the first author. 2. Because there was a significant zero-order correlation between the stability appraisal and the globality and severity appraisals, we allowed the errors of the stability and the combined globality/severity appraisal to be correlated in all the models we tested.

Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination 151 Figure 1 .

 1511 Figure 1. Path model demonstrating the hypothesized Group Identity Lens model.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Path model demonstrating the hypothesized Group Identity Resource model.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Path model demonstrating the hypothesized Group Identity Moderator model.

  ϫ

Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination 155 Figure 4 .

 1554 Figure 4. Path model demonstrating the Group Identity Lens model with standardized estimates.

Figure 5 .

 5 Figure 5. Path model demonstrating the Group Identity Resource model with standardized estimates.

Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination 157 Figure 6 .

 1576 Figure 6. Path model demonstrating the Group Identity Moderator model with standardized estimates.

Table 1 .

 1 Eccleston & Major appraisals of discrimination 153 Attribution to discrimination items

			Observed
	Mean	SD	range

Table 2 .

 2 Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among measured variables

	Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(2)

+ p < .10; * p < .05. Note: Scale values range from 0 to 6, with the exception of the attributions to prejudice scale, which ranges from 0 to 100.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship to the first author and by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-9983888) to the second author. We would like to thank the members of our lab group (Michael Hogg, Cheryl Kaiser, Zoe Kinias, Shannon McCoy, Laurie O'Brien, and Brooke Vick) who provided insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


Bertjan E J Doosje
email: doosje@uva.nl]

Nyla R Branscombe

Russell Spears

Antony S R Manstead

Antecedents and Consequences of Group-Based Guilt: The Effects of Ingroup Identification

Keywords:

Effects of ingroup identification on antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt were examined in two experiments. In the first study, ingroup identification was unrelated to guilt when the negative historical information was said to come from an outgroup source, but was positively related when the same information was said to come from an ingroup source. Among high identifiers it is difficult to dismiss negative information when the source is one's own ingroup. In the second study, people who are low in identification were more in favor of acknowledging the negative aspects of their group's history as a way of alleviating feelings of guilt. We discuss the implications of these results for coming to terms with the legacy of a negative ingroup past.

keywords collective guilt, group-based emotion

Clinton apologized to Nelson Mandela for slavery on behalf of White Americans. In South Africa, the 'truth-and-reconciliation' commission has encouraged White South Africans to confess their past immoral actions and express their guilt, in the hope that this will lead to improved relations between Black and White South Africans [START_REF] Minow | Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass atrocities[END_REF]. Indeed, the dramatic increase during the last few years in the number of public expressions of national guilt or apologies around the world, has led Barkan (2000) to argue that 'Moral issues came to dominate public attention and political issues and displayed the willingness of nations to embrace their own guilt. This national selfreflexity is the new guilt of nations' (p. XVII). However, in most nations, the idea of expressing guilt or apologies for the past remains a highly sensitive and controversial issue. For example, despite repeated calls for the Australian Prime Minister to apologize to Aborigines on behalf of the government, there has been considerable reluctance by him to do so (Augoustinos & LeCouteur, 2004). Similarly, in The Netherlands the national government debates their past involvement in slavery in Surinam and the colonization of Indonesia.

In two studies we investigate the issue of group-based guilt over the past (mis)treatment of a group by one's ancestors, and how this is related to the issue of apology. Specifically, we examine the implications of ingroup identification for feelings of group-based guilt as a result of one's ancestors having colonized another country. We argue when people feel a strong attachment to their group, they are motivated to search for and use methods of avoiding feelings of guilt about their group's past behavior. We expected that ingroup identification would play an important role both in terms of interacting with antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt. In Study 1, we investigate how the antecedent source of the historical information (ingroup or outgroup) interacts with group identification to affect the acceptance of group-based guilt. Study 2 examines the interactive role of the consequences of group-based guilt in terms of past reparation to the harmed group (apologies or financial restitution) and ingroup identification.

Social identity theory [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF]) and self-categorization theory [START_REF] Turner | Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory[END_REF] offer insight into when and why people's emotions will be influenced by the group to which they belong [START_REF] Mackie | Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context[END_REF]. It is argued that people can experience feelings of guilt on behalf of their group when the behavior of other ingroup members is inconsistent with the present norms or values of the group. Groupbased guilt can be conceptualized as guilt that is experienced as a consequence of belonging to a group that has done something that is perceived as illegitimate (e.g. Branscombe, Doosje, & McGarty, 2002). For example, Branscombe (1998) has shown that reminding people of the advantages they have had as a group in relation to another group (in this case men in relation to women) can lead to lowered collective selfesteem, potentially because feelings of guilt were induced based on that group membership. Other research has shown that people can feel guilty, as a Dutch person whose group has harmed Indonesia, a former Dutch colony (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998), as a White American toward Black Americans because of slavery [START_REF] Swim | White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action[END_REF], and as an employed person toward the unemployed [START_REF] Montada | Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged[END_REF].

Not everyone, however, is equally likely to experience feelings of guilt when faced with negative information about their group's past. Based on social identity theory [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF], we argue that people are motivated to hold a positive view of their group and they are more likely to do so to the extent that they identify with that group (Branscombe & Wann, 1991, 1994;Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995). If members attach great importance to a particular group membership, they are less likely to accept negative aspects of that group when confronted with information that portrays their group negatively (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). We therefore argue that high identification may lead people to search for means of avoiding feelings of guilt (Doosje & Branscombe, 2003).

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3)

Research by Doosje et al. (1998, Study 2) supported this hypothesis. In that study Dutch participants were confronted with a short summary of the Dutch colonization of Indonesia, where the evaluative nature of the historical message was manipulated. One-third of the participants read a thoroughly negative history message, another third read a version in which a completely positive perspective on the colonization was presented, and a final third read a mixedvalence version. The level of identification with being Dutch was measured before this message was presented. The strongest feelings of groupbased guilt were experienced when the thoroughly negative history description was presented, and the weakest feelings of guilt occurred with the positive history. This was the case for both low and high identifiers. However, when the presented information was of mixedvalence, low identifiers reported higher levels of guilt than did high identifiers. It was argued that the greater guilt among the low identifiers compared to high identifiers was due to their differential willingness to accept negative aspects of their group membership. Only when the presented information was of mixedvalence is there sufficient scope to express such differential guilt reactions; in the other conditions, the messages were either unambiguously negative or positive, leaving less room for interpretation (e.g. [START_REF] Doosje | When bad isn't all bad: The strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping[END_REF][START_REF] Kunda | The case for motivated reasoning[END_REF][START_REF] Stangor | Accuracy and expectancy-confirming processing orientations and the development of stereotypes and prejudice[END_REF].

In the present studies we aim to further test the notion that identification plays a crucial role in the experience of group-based guilt. Our basic assumption is that people who are highly identified with a group try to avoid feelings of guilt associated with their group when this is possible. In two studies we manipulate the possibilities for highly identified people to avoid feelings of guilt about their group's past behavior. In Study 1, we investigate this issue by exploring the interactive role of identification and a crucial antecedent of group-based guilt, namely the source of the negative information about one's group (ingroup or outgroup). It is argued that it is easier for highly identified people to dismiss negative information about one's group when they are told that the information is coming from an outgroup source rather than from an ingroup source. In Study 2, we examine the influence of identification and an important consequence of guilt in terms of past reparations by the ingroup (apologies or financial reparation) on present-day feelings of groupbased guilt. It is argued that it is easier for highly identified group members to avoid feelings of guilt when one's group has dealt with the past negative behavior in terms of financial reparation rather than apologies, because apologies constitute an explicit acknowledgment of the wrongs of the ingroup.

Study 1

In this study, we aim to investigate the role of ingroup identification in interaction with an important antecedent of group-based guilt, namely source of information. Previous research has shown the significance of identification in interaction with another type of antecedent-the degree of unfavorableness of information about the ingroup (Doosje et al., 1998). When it is possible for high identifiers to avoid feelings of guilt, we suggest that high identifiers will be motivated to do so depending on the source of that information. We expect to replicate the findings of Doosje et al. (1998), with low and high identifiers reporting about an equal level of group-based guilt when the source is an outgroup (e.g. historians from the USA) and the information is thoroughly negative. We expect highly identified people to question the credibility of the outgroup source. However, we expect a different pattern when the source of information is the ingroup (i.e. Dutch historians). On the basis of selfcategorization theory [START_REF] Turner | Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory[END_REF], we argue that the extent to which people perceive the source of negative information as accepted by the ingroup is likely to have an impact on feelings of group-based guilt, especially when the individual feels strong attachment to the ingroup. Specifically, it is expected that high identifiers will be more likely to experience group-based guilt than low identifiers when the source of information is the ingroup, because it Doosje et al. group-based guilt is more difficult to dismiss information coming from their own group.

Previous research in the attitude domain is in line with the general idea that information becomes more self-relevant when there is overlap in terms of group membership between the source and the self. For example, it has been demonstrated that group members are more likely to pay attention to, and change their attitudes, when the source of information is an ingroup rather than an outgroup (e.g. [START_REF] Mackie | Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of ingroup and outgroup persuasive messages[END_REF][START_REF] Mackie | Processing of persuasive ingroup messages[END_REF][START_REF] Wetherell | Social identity and group polarization[END_REF]. In addition, people are more accepting of criticism of their ingroup when this comes from an ingroup member rather than from an outgroup member [START_REF] Hornsey | It's OK if we say it, but you can't': Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism[END_REF]. In our view, messages from an ingroup source are particularly relevant for people who identify strongly with their group. We therefore expect people who are highly identified with their group will experience more group-based guilt than people low in ingroup identification when the negative information comes from an ingroup source.

In terms of behavior, guilt is predictive of reparations aimed at undoing the harm done, for example by offering financial restitution (e.g. [START_REF] Minow | Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass atrocities[END_REF]. Doosje et al. (1998) found that when people are presented with mixed valence information about their group's past, high identifiers were less likely to favor financial restitution to the harmed group than low identifiers. We expected to find this pattern again, particularly when the information comes from an outgroup source, because high identifiers may find a way to question the credibility of this source. We expected a less pronounced negative (or even positive) relation between identification and financial reparation when the source of information is an ingroup.

With respect to perceived credibility of the source of information, we expect to find similar patterns as for group-based guilt. From a selfcategorization perspective, it might be argued that people may perceive negative information about their group as more credible when the source is an ingroup rather than an outgroup. As the attitude literature has revealed, people are more likely to change their attitudes when the source of information is an ingroup. For example, [START_REF] Lorge | Prestige, suggestion, and attitudes[END_REF] found that people in the USA agreed more with statements when it was said that they were made by an ingroup member (Lincoln), than by an outgroup member (Lenin). We expect this tendency to be stronger when people identify strongly with their ingroup.

Method

Participants Altogether, 233 undergraduates at a large Dutch university participated in this study during a large testing session. About 66% of these students were female. Their mean age was 21 years. Students received course credit for their participation, and were fully debriefed.

Overview and design

All participants received a 'Questionnaire about The Netherlands', starting off with an ingroup identification scale. Subsequently, the source of the historical information was manipulated by presenting participants with a message about the role of The Netherlands during the colonization of Indonesia that was supposedly written by historians from a particular country. Participants were led to believe that the text was written by either an ingroup or an outgroup source. Finally, participants reported the extent to which they felt group-based guilt, favored financial compensation to the harmed group, evaluated the credibility of the source of information, and completed manipulation checks.

Procedure Participants' national identity was made salient by having them complete an eightitem scale assessing level of ingroup identification with the Dutch. This measure was used by Doosje et al. (1998) and formed a reliable scale in the present study (Cronbach's alpha = .92). Examples of the items used are 'I identify with other Dutch people', 'Dutch people are an important group to me', and 'I feel attached to Dutch people'. Indonesia. This information was said to be written by historians, and depending on the condition, participants were told that those historians were from the ingroup (the Netherlands) or an outgroup (the USA). This historical description contained negative information about the Dutch during the colonization of Indonesia, including that the Dutch had exhausted the natural resources of Indonesia and that they had exploited the cheap labor force of Indonesia; it also contained two photos to increase the vividness of the information.

Manipulation of source of information

Dependent measures As a check on the source manipulation, participants were asked to indicate the country of the historians who wrote the summary. They could choose between 1 (The Netherlands), 2 (Indonesia), 3 (USA) and 4 (it did not say). As a check on the overall negative tone of the message, participants were asked to indicate how the Dutch had behaved in Indonesia during the colonization, according to the information just presented, on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely negative) to 7 (extremely positive).

The degree to which group-based guilt was accepted by participants was assessed by administering a three-item measure ('I feel guilty about the negative things the Dutch have done to Indonesians', 'I feel regret for the harmful past actions of the Dutch toward the Indonesians', and 'I can easily feel guilty about the bad outcomes received by Indonesians which were brought about by the Dutch in the past'), answered on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These three items were used by Doosje et al. (1998) and formed a reliable scale in the current sample (alpha = .84).

Financial compensation was measured using one item ('I think the Dutch government should make more money available to Indonesia because of the things we have done there in the past'), answered on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Perceived credibility of the source of information was assessed using five items that assessed credibility of the source (e.g. 'To what extent do you think these historians are reliable as the source of information?', 'To what extent do you think this source is honest?', all answered on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) (alpha = .91).

Results

Manipulation and other checks Ninety-four percent of the participants indicated the correct nationality of the historians who wrote the information about the Dutch in Indonesia. Preliminary analyses revealed no differences with or without the 7% who answered incorrectly, so we decided to retain all participants for the main analyses. On another check, participants indicated that the information was negative for their ingroup (M = 1.52, SD = 0.93), deviating significantly from the scale midpoint 4 (t (212) = 39.87, p < .001).

Group-based guilt

We predicted that ingroup identification would be unrelated to groupbased guilt when the historians were believed to come from the USA, but that identification would be positively related to guilt when Dutch historians were described as the source. A General Linear Model (GLM) procedure was performed on the measure of group-based guilt, using the source of information as a dichotomous independent variable and the level of identification as a continuous independent variable. No main effects emerged for the source (F(1, 229) = 0.00, p = 0.97), or the degree of identification (F(1, 229) = 0.70, p = .40), but the interaction between identification and source was significant (F(1, 229) = 6.34, p < .02). The pattern is displayed in Figure 1. Analyses of the betas indicate that in the USA condition there was no significant relation between identification and guilt (␤ = -.11, t(1, 112) = 1.14, p = .24). The pattern in the Dutch condition is as expected: high identification was positively related to feelings of group-based guilt (␤ = .21, t(1,117) = 2.40, p < .02).

Financial compensation A GLM analysis on the financial compensation measure revealed a main effect of ingroup identification only (␤ = -.16, F(1, 229) = 5.88, p < .02). As expected this relationship was negative: high identification tends to co-occur with low levels of being in Doosje et al. group-based guilt favor of financial compensation by one's government. This main effect was not qualified by a significant interaction (F(1, 229) = 0.00, p = .96).

Perceived credibility of the source A GLM analysis on the measure of perceived credibility of the source revealed no significant main effects of identification (F(1, 228) = 2.57, p = .11), but the main effect of source was reliable (F(1, 228) = 21.66, p < .001). The Dutch source (M = 4.71) was perceived as more credible than the USA source (M = 3.96). As expected, this main effect was qualified by a significant interaction between identification and source (F(1, 228) = 4.88, p < .03). The patterns are shown in Figure 2. As predicted, in the USA condition, identification was negatively related to perceived source credibility (␤ = -.24, t(1, 112) = 2.58, p < .02). Unexpectedly, identification was not related to perceived ingroup source credibility (␤ = .05, t(1, 117) = 0.46, p = .65). Importantly, the significant interaction between identification and source indicates that the beta in the Dutch condition differs from the beta in the USA condition.

Discussion

In this study we examined the emotional reactions of people who differ in their level of identification with their group to a message that contains negative information about their ingroup's history as a function of an important antecedent of group-based guilt, namely the source of the negative information in terms of group membership. We observed that people who identify strongly with their group experience as much guilt as less identified group members when the source was an outgroup (historians from the USA) and the information was thoroughly negative. This replicates the findings obtained by Doosje et al. (1998, Study 2).

The present study goes beyond the prior research, however, by indicating that people perceived the USA source as least credible, and this pattern was stronger when ingroup identification increased. Thus, when exposed to groupthreatening information coming from an outgroup, group members (particularly those who identify strongly with their group) may question the credibility of the outgroup source. However, when the ingroup was the source of information, a different pattern was obtained: identification was positively related to groupbased guilt. Based on self-categorization theory, it was predicted that the extent to which people categorize the source as similar to the self in terms of group membership, the more persuasive the message should be (e.g. [START_REF] Turner | Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory[END_REF]. The effects on group-based guilt support this notion. However, even though the ingroup source was perceived as the most credible in this study, ingroup identification did not seem to influence the perception of source credibility. Thus, it is difficult to explain the effect of identification on group-based guilt when receiving a message from an ingroup member in terms of difference in perceived source credibility. Why, then, do low identifiers experience less group-based guilt than high identifiers when confronted with unfavorable information about their ingroup from an ingroup source? We address this question directly in our next study.

Study 2

In Study 2 we are interested in explaining the positive relation between ingroup identification and group-based guilt in response to an unfavorable message stemming from the ingroup. To do so, we focus on the effect of ingroup identification on an important consequence of group-based guilt, namely reparation to the harmed group. Such reparations may take different forms, such as offering financial compensation or presenting official apologies to the harmed group. We argue that dealing with the past in terms of money or apologies may be appraised differently as a function of ingroup identification. For low identifiers, apologizing may be a good means of dealing with the negative past, and this may alleviate feelings of guilt. For people high in identification, on the other hand, it may be troubling to hear people from their own group confessing the wrongs of the ingroup, and rather than alleviating guilt, it may be disturbing and thus result in relatively high levels of guilt. Thus, it is hypothesized that when an ingroup expresses an apology to the People high in ingroup identification are expected to be more in favor of dealing with the situation in a manner that does not involve a group-humiliating confession of ingroup wrongs. Instead, they may be more in favor of dealing with the situation in financial ways, such as financial compensation for the victimized group. Offering money to a victimized group does not directly involve an open confession of wrongdoing on the part of the ingroup. Offering money represents an attitude of generally accepting the perpetrator/victim relationship, while potentially solving it in a relatively easy way ('buying a clean conscience'). It can be compared with giving money to charity organizations in order to deal with feelings of guilt that may arise when seeing pictures of a young child dying of hunger in a Third World country. Thus, we argue that when members of an ingroup have offered money to a victimized outgroup to compensate for the harm done by the ingroup in the past, this is likely to alleviate feelings of group-based guilt for people who are highly identified with their group. People who are less identified with their group may still feel uncomfortable about dealing with this situation in purely financial terms. As in Study 1, we measure the extent to which people favor offering financial compensation to the harmed group. We expect to find a negative relation between recommendations for financial compensation and identification when people receive no information about the way in which the ingroup has dealt with the issue in the past (i.e. the control condition). However, we expect to observe a less negative or even positive relation between recommendations for financial compensation and identification when people are informed that their group has apologized in the past for their group's past behavior, because under these circumstances, it is more difficult for high identifiers to deny the responsibility to repair the harm done by their group.

Method

Participants Altogether, 437 students at a large Dutch university participated in this study. About 70% of these students were female. The mean age of the sample was 21 years. Students received course credit for participation, and were fully debriefed afterwards.

Design and procedure

The design comprised one between-subjects factor: past ingroup behavior in terms of reparations (not specified, apologized, gave money). Participants were first requested to indicate their level of national identification with being Dutch, using the same measure as in Study 1. Again, the eight items formed a highly reliable scale (alpha = .91). Identification was included as a continuous independent variable.

All participants received a historical account of the Dutch colonization of Indonesia, similar to the unfavorable ingroup information presented in Study 1. Immediately thereafter, past ingroup behavior in terms of reparations to the victimized outgroup was manipulated. The manipulation involved information about the way in which the Dutch government has dealt with the legacy of the Dutch colonization of Indonesia. In the not specified condition, the behavior of the Dutch government toward Indonesia after the colonial period was not specified (i.e. control condition). In the apology condition, it was stated that the Dutch government and the present Dutch monarch, Queen Beatrix, have repeatedly apologized to Indonesia on behalf of the Dutch people. This manipulation was reinforced by including a picture of Queen Beatrix with her hand above her chest (as a sort of 'mea culpa' gesture). Finally, in the money condition, people were told that the Dutch government and Queen Beatrix had repeatedly offered money to Indonesia as a financial compensation for their maltreatment.

Dependent measures

In order to assess whether participants had perceived the manipulation as intended, they were asked to indicate how the Dutch government had behaved after the colonial period according to the information presented. They could choose Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3) between three options, with one option being the correct one. As a check on the overall negative tone of the message, participants were asked to indicate how the Dutch had behaved in Indonesia during the colonization, according to the information presented, on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely negative) to 7 (extremely positive).

The main dependent measure of groupbased guilt followed. The same three items as in Study 1 were presented (alpha = .82), answered on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants were then requested to indicate the recommendation for financial compensation by their government using the same item as in Study 1 ('I think the Dutch government should make more money available to Indonesia because of the things we have done there in the past'), answered on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Results

All analyses of variance included one betweensubjects factor, past ingroup behavior (not specified, apology, or money) and one continuous independent variable national identification.

Manipulation check Ninety-nine percent of participants indicated the correct past behavior of the Dutch government toward Indonesia after the colonization. Preliminary analysis revealed no differences with or without the remaining 1%, so all participants were retained in the main analyses. On a second check, participants indicated that they perceived the information as negative for their group (M = 1.37, SD = 0.77), deviating significantly from the scale midpoint 4 (t(431) = 70.74, p < .001).

Group-based guilt It was predicted that identification would be positively related to group-based guilt in the apology condition, whereas identification was expected to be negatively related to guilt in the money condition. The predicted interaction effect between past ingroup behavior and the level of ingroup identification was significant (F(2, 430) = 3.47, p < .04). Figure 3 shows the pattern from this interaction. As predicted, in the apology condition, identification was positively related to group-based guilt (␤ = .23, t(1, 142) = 2.87, p < .005). In the money condition, identification was slightly negatively related to guilt, although this relation did not differ significantly from zero (␤ = -.07, t(1, 140) = 0.79, p = .43). In the condition in which no past reparations were mentioned, there was no significant relation between identification and guilt (␤ =.04, t(1, 148) = 0.49, p = .62). Specific contrast analyses using dummy coding within the regression procedure shows that the slope in the money condition did not differ from the slope in the control condition (␤ = -.06, t(1, 430) = -0.94, p = .35, that the slope in the apology condition differed marginally from the slope in the control condition (␤ =.11, t(1, 430) = 1.80, p < .075), and that the slopes in the apology and money condition did differ significantly from each other (␤ = -.18, t(1, 430) = -2.60, p < .01).

Financial compensation

We predicted that identification would be negatively related to recommendations for financial reparations when no information was presented about the ingroup's past behavior in terms of reparation, but that this relation between compensation and identification should be less negative or even positive when the ingroup was said to have offered apologies or given money as a means of past reparation. There was a trend of past ingroup behavior (F(2, 426) = 2.91, p < .06), a main effect of ingroup identification (F(1, 426) = 12.88, p < .001), and a significant interaction between these two variables (F(2, 426) = 3.16, p < .04) (see Figure 4). As predicted, the relation between compensation and ingroup identification was negative in the control condition (␤ = -.32, t(1, 147) = 4.11, p < .001), replicating the finding of Study 1. However, when the ingroup was said to have apologized (␤ = -.05, t(1, 141) = -0.58, p = .57) or already financially compensated the harmed group (␤ = -.14, t(1, 138) = -1.26, p = .11), the relation between compensation and ingroup identification became less negative. Specific contrast analyses using dummy coding within the regression procedure shows that the slope in the apology condition differs from the slope in the control condition (␤ = .15, t(1, 426) = 2.42, p < .02), and that the slope in the money condition differed marginally from the slope in the control condition (␤ = -.11, t(1, 426) = 1.66, p < .10). The slopes in the apology and money condition did not differ significantly from each other (␤ = -.05, t(1, 426) = -0.78, p = .43).

Group

Discussion

This experiment examined the combined effects of past reparation behavior by the ingroup toward a victimized group and ingroup identification on feelings of group-based guilt. Identification was positively related to groupbased guilt when people were told that their ingroup had expressed apologies for their negative behavior toward a victimized outgroup. When people thought their group had given money in the past, there was a nonsignificant trend for people higher in ingroup identification to experience less group-based guilt. Identification was negatively related to recommendations for financial compensation when people were not informed about their group's past reparation behavior, but the relation became less negative when people were under the impression that their group had apologized to the victimized outgroup or had financially compensated the victimized outgroup.

These results have a number of implications. First, they show that level of identification is an important predictor of the way in which people deal with the legacy of their group's past behavior. Identification in combination with an important consequence of guilt, namely reparation behavior, significantly influenced people's present-day feelings of group-based guilt. Specifically, when people do not have a strong attachment to their group, they search for a way to deal with their group's past in a meaningful and psychological manner. They experience relatively high levels of guilt when told that their ingroup has so far only dealt with the past in financial terms, and less guilt when their group has dealt with its past by offering apologies. We argue that offering an apology is costly for the ingroup's image and is therefore more likely to be favored by people who have not invested a great deal in their group membership [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup conflict[END_REF].

People for whom their group membership is relatively important are more likely to experience group-based guilt when told that their group has acknowledged their mistakes by offering official apologies on a number of occasions. The very fact that it is the ingroup that has accepted responsibility for the past by apologizing for it results in especially high levels of group-based guilt. However, when the harmed outgroup has been compensated financially, high identifiers tended to experience less guilt. It seems that they are more likely than low identifiers to feel their group's legacy can be dealt with in purely financial terms, possibly in an effort to 'buy' a clean conscience.

Looking at the recommendations for financial compensation, it is interesting to observe that high identifiers are only as willing as low identifiers to compensate when their group has acknowledged in some way their mistakes in the past, either by offering apologies or by presenting financial reparation. When the ingroup has not acknowledged their mistakes, identification was negatively related to recommendations for financial compensation, a replication of the finding of Study 1.

General discussion

The present studies focused on the feelings of group-based guilt that can be experienced as a function of antecedents (Study 1) and consequences of guilt (Study 2), both in combination with ingroup identification. In the first study, we examined the role of an important antecedent of guilt, namely how group membership of the source of the negative information about one's group may have a differential effect on groupbased guilt acceptance, depending on the level of ingroup identification. In the second study, we focused on the consequences of groupbased guilt by investigating the reactions of group members to past ingroup behavior after learning about how the ingroup has dealt with their history in terms of reparation to the harmed group. In both studies, we investigated the reactions of people who differ in their involvement with their national group.

The overall picture that emerges from these studies is that people differ in the way in which they deal with the legacy of their ingroup's past. Specifically, when attachment to the group increases, people are more likely to question the credibility of the source of the information when it comes from an outgroup (Study 1), and Doosje et al. group-based guilt they are not particularly willing to compensate the harmed group (Study 1 and 2). However, if the ingroup has acknowledged their past behavior by making reparations, high identifiers are as likely as low identifiers to recommend financial compensation to the harmed outgroup (Study 2). In contrast, when people are weakly identified to their group, they are likely to accept the negative message about their group's past, even when it's coming from an outgroup source (Study 1). Those lower in identification are likely to cope with their group's past by feeling relieved (as indicated by showing low levels of group-based guilt) when their group has offered apologies to the harmed outgroup (Study 2). Finally, low identified group members are in favor of financial compensation in the present (Study 1), irrespective of past reparation by their group (Study 2). We believe that these reactions depending on the level of ingroup identification point to a fundamental difference between people in terms of their willingness to accept negative aspects of one's group membership (Doosje et al., 1998). People who are highly identified with their group are less likely to integrate negative aspects of their group membership into their identity than weakly identified group members.

What can we say about the examples of public expressions of wrong-doings, guilt and/or apologies described in the opening? Based on our research, we assume that people who live today may, to some extent, experience emotional reactions such as collective guilt because of their association with the perpetrators in terms of shared group membership with their ancestors. It is also clear from our studies that not everyone is likely to experience these emotions to the same extent. National and/or ethnic identification are important variables for understanding these emotions and accompanying action tendencies. People whose national identity is not a central aspect of the self may be relatively willing to accept possible negative aspects of their nation's history. Consequently, they are more likely to express feelings of guilt (e.g. in South Africa) and offer apologies (e.g. in Belgium) for their group's past behavior. In contrast, for people who place a high value on their national identity, unwillingness to accept negative aspects of their nation's past is more likely to occur. These people are not likely to express their group's wrong doing and guilt, or to offer their apologies. In addition, an official apology by national authorities may alleviate feelings of guilt for members who do not have a strong attachment to their group, but may give rise to strong feelings of guilt among members with a high level of national identification, because for them it may be more disturbing to be reminded about their group's negative past actions.

In these studies, we focused on emotional reactions of the Dutch when they are reminded of their past colonization of Indonesia. Obviously, there are many other countries that have colonized other countries (e.g. Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, and Spain), and we argue that in these cases similar emotional processes may operate. In addition, we assume that in general the same psychological processes are working in most contexts in which negative aspects of a country's history are made salient. Thus, we expect to find similar patterns of behavior when looking at nations that have mistreated indigenous people (e.g. the USA, Canada, Australia), nations that were involved in slavery (e.g. Ivory Coast, The Netherlands), and nations that have been involved in genocide (e.g. Germany, Rwanda). At the same time, we realize the contextspecificity and cultural variation that may occur in emotional consequences of immoral actions of one's group. For example, [START_REF] Mcgarty | Refining the meaning of the 'collective' in collective guilt: Harm, guilt and apology in Australia[END_REF] have argued that national identification may not be the best predictor of guilt in White Australians for their treatment of indigenous people, and that it may be more fruitful to explore identification with specific subgroups within Australia to understand differences in feelings of guilt in that context.

It is clear from our studies that ingroup identification (more specifically, national identification) plays an important role in understanding intergroup emotional experience. Ingroup identification can hinder expressions of guilt in perpetrator groups, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3) which could potentially result in victimized groups being less willing to forgive the past. In our view, group identification is a pervasive tool for perceiving and interpreting the world [START_REF] Haslam | From personal pictures in the head to group-based tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and manage social reality[END_REF][START_REF] Spears | Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification[END_REF]. When ingroup identification is strong, it may be difficult to accept a negative perspective on the ingroup's past. This makes people more willing to question any criticism of their ingroup in terms of its past harmful actions toward an outgroup. Nonetheless, given the correlational nature of our studies in terms of national identification, it is not possible to draw causal conclusions about its role as an antecedent of collective guilt. It may well be the case that the relation between identification and guilt is a function of a third variable. However, the fact that we have observed interactive effects of identification and other contextual variables makes this possibility less likely.

Our studies have shown the importance of national identification, but mainly in interaction with the source of information (Study 1) and the type of past reparation (Study 2). We have shown how people's responses to their group's past behavior is by no means fixed, but is dependent on the source of information, with the ingroup being more persuasive than an outgroup, especially when ingroup identification is relatively high. In addition, past reparation efforts have different psychological consequences as a function of ingroup identification. Specifically, past apologies are perceived as troubling for people who place a high value on their national identity, while it may provide relief for people for whose national identity is less central. Taken together, our studies have shown the relevance of focusing on contextual antecedents and consequences of guilt in combination with national identification for understanding differences in collective guilt and associated action tendencies.

  Participants received a one-page summary of the 350 years during which the Dutch colonized Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9(3)

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Group-based guilt as a function of source of information (Netherlands, Indonesia and United States) and ingroup identification (-1 SD, +1 SD) (Study 1).

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Perceived source credibility as a function of source of information (Netherlands, Indonesia and United States) and ingroup identification (-1 SD, +1 SD) (Study 1).

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Group-based guilt as a function of past reparation (nothing, apology, and money) and ingroup identification (-1 SD, +1 SD) (Study 2).

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Recommendation for financial reparations as a function of past reparation (nothing, apology, and money) and ingroup identification (-1 SD, +1 SD) (Study 2).

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a Visiting Professorship grant from NWO (the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research) to Nyla R. Branscombe. We thank Sven Zebel for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. , M., & LeCouteur, A. (2004). On whether to apologize to indigenous Australians: The denial of white guilt. In N. R. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 236-261). New York: Cambridge University Press. Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. New York: Norton. Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one's gender group's privileges and disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167-184. Branscombe, N. R., Doosje, B., & McGarty, C. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 49-66). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1991). The positive social and self concept consequences of sport team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127. Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641-657. Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235-248. Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R, & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872-886. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.

Augoustinos

Doosje et al. group-based guilt

Biographical notes