International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94-114

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94–114
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Through the lens of history: The effects of beliefs about historical

T
victimization on responses to refugees
Zsolt Péter Szabóa,*, Johanna Ray Vollhardtb, Noémi Zsuzsanna Mészárosc
a
Department of Social Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
b
Department of Psychology, Clark University, United States
c
Department of Social Psychology, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary
A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT
Keywords: In societies with collective memories of their group’s historical victimization, perceptions of this
Collective victimhood victimization are linked to attitudes and behaviors towards present-day victim groups such as
Collective memories refugees. We examine this idea in the Hungarian context, where collective memories of historical
Inclusive victim consciousness victimization include the fate of Hungarian refugees in 1956. In surveys among two Hungarian
Exclusive victim consciousness
community samples, we find support for the hypothesis that exclusive regional victim con-
Historical analogies
Central Eastern Europe
sciousness predicts support for anti-refugee policies, while inclusive regional victim conscious-
ness predicts support for pro-refugee policies. In Study 2, we replicate and extend these findings
with a novel measure of event-specific victim consciousness (i.e., historical analogies between the
two refugee situations). We show that event-specific victim consciousness mediates the effects of
regional victim consciousness on attitudes towards refugees, and predicts prosocial behavior
towards refugees.
Introduction
Recently, Europe has faced the largest influx of refugees and economic migrants since World War II. Since 2014, 1.8 million
people have arrived in Europe, mainly from the Middle East and Africa. One of the main routes leads through Hungary, which is one
of the top recipients of asylum applications per capita (Eurostat, 2016). Hungarian society has shown different reactions to the
refugees. Thousands of volunteers and activists have shown solidarity, offering humanitarian aid and support (Kallius, Monterescu, &
Rajaram, 2016). Conversely, and in line with the government’s rhetoric, many others dehumanize the refugees and believe they
increase security risks, take social benefits, and threaten the country’s culture and identity (Bruneau, Kteily, & Laustsen, 2018;
Manevich, 2016). Thus, many support the government’s tough measures, such as involving the army in border protection and putting
up a razor-wire fence on Hungary’s borders with Serbia and Croatia (Hungarytoday, 2016; Surk & Castle, 2015). What helps explain
when people respond to refugees in these prosocial versus hostile ways?
Research on host society members’ responses to refugees has examined variables such as perceived threat and competition,
political ideology and identities, and dehumanization (for a review see Esses, Hamilton, & Gaucher, 2017). We argue that in addition
to these more general social psychological predictors, where relevant, context-specific collective memories of ingroup victimization
(Bilali & Ross, 2012; Vollhardt, 2012a) will also be powerful predictors of responses to refugees. Specifically, when the current
refugee experience of outgroups evokes comparisons with the ingroup’s collective memories of victimization and refugee experiences,
whether people see these events as connected or distinct can help explain attitudes towards present-day refugees.
⁎
Corresponding author at: 1064, Budapest, Izabella utca 46, Hungary.
E-mail address: szabo.zsolt.peter@ppk.elte.hu (Z.P. Szabó).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.10.009
Received 15 March 2019; Received in revised form 17 September 2019; Accepted 27 October 2019
0147-1767/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z.P. Szabó, et al. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94–114
One such context, while not unique (see for example Kaczynski’s speech in 2017 about the Polish situation, Barteczko & Sobczak,
2017), is Hungary. In addition to Hungarian refugees after both world wars, after the defeat of the revolution against Soviet rule in
1956 approximately 200,000 Hungarians left to escape retaliation and find better life conditions. Today, some Hungarians draw
parallels between the Hungarian refugees of the past and the current refugees from elsewhere, pointing out their perceived re-
sponsibility to help (Balogh, 2017). Others reject the comparison. For instance, Zoltán Kovács, the Hungarian government
spokesman, said that “any comparison to what’s happening now, third-country migrants trying to enter the European Union is (…)
ignorance of history” (Dunai, 2016). Conversely, criticizing the lack of aid to asylum seekers who were stranded at Budapest’s train
station, historian Friederike Kind-Kovács argued that “this train station is not just a symbol of today’s refugee crisis. It also reminds us
of one of Hungary’s ‘own’ past refugee crises.” (Vargha, 2015). She describes how Hungarian refugees after the First World War also
used the train stations in Budapest as their main emergency shelter, thereby emphasizing the parallels between these two events of
ingroup and outgroup victimization.
These examples reflect inclusive and exclusive victim consciousness, that is, the degree to which people perceive their group’s
victimization as similar to other groups’ experiences of collective victimization, or as distinct and unique (for reviews see Vollhardt,
2012a, 2015). These comparisons can occur on different levels – focusing on other groups worldwide, other groups involved in a
particular conflict, or other groups in the region (Vollhardt, 2012a; Vollhardt et al., 2019). While some research has found that
perceived similarity in suffering in general with other victim groups predicted attitudes towards refugees and immigrants (Vollhardt,
Nair, & Tropp, 2016, 2018), no research to date has examined the effects of more specific comparisons of victimization events—such as
the historical refugee experiences of the ingroup, and the present-day refugee experiences of outgroups. We refer to these com-
parisons as event-specific victim consciousness. The present paper examines the role of regional and event-specific collective victim
beliefs in predicting attitudes and behaviors towards refugees in Hungary, where the historical comparison with ingroup refugees is
relevant.
Social psychological predictors of attitudes towards refugees
In their review of predictors of attitudes towards refugees among members of the host society, Esses et al. (2017) focused on three
major sources: perceived threat and competition, national identification, and dehumanization. Because perceived threat, competi-
tion, and dehumanization are also sometimes used as outcome measures and indicators of negative intergroup attitudes (e.g.,
Verkuyten, 2018), we focus here on national identification and other more distal predictors.
National identification, particularly the mode referred to as nationalism (Esses et al., 2017) or ingroup glorification (Roccas, Klar,
& Liviatan, 2006) that captures the belief that the in-group is better than other groups, is associated with negative feelings and
behavioral intentions toward asylum seekers (Louis, Esses, & Lalonde, 2013). Conversely, attachment—another mode of national
identification, also referred to as patriotism—does not tend to predict negative attitudes toward refugees (Esses et al., 2017; however,
see Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2018). Similarly, how the national ingroup is defined influences attitudes towards refugees: an ethnic
understanding of nationhood predicts more negative, and a civic understanding of nationhood more positive attitudes towards
refugees (e.g., Kende, Lantos, & Krekó, 2018; Reijerse, Van Acker, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Duriez, 2013). Another major predictor of
attitudes towards refugees is political ideology. Generally, conservative and right-wing ideologies in different contexts predict more
negative attitudes towards refugees and related policies (e.g., Bruneau et al., 2018; Wike, Stokes, & Simmons, 2016).
Studies in Hungary also support the role of these and other psychological processes in explaining attitudes towards refugees. For
example, both ingroup attachment and glorification were correlated with anti-immigrant prejudice in Hungary (Kende, Hadarics, &
Szabó, 2018); and Hungarian participants who endorsed left-wing political ideologies were more likely to volunteer and engage in
activism in support of refugees (Kende, Lantos, Belinszky, Csaba, & Lukács, 2017; see also Bruneau et al., 2018; Kende, Hadarics et al.,
2018; Wike et al., 2016). Additionally, trait empathic concern (but not perspective taking) was associated with support for anti-
refugee policies in Hungary (Bruneau et al., 2018).
In addition to these more general predictors of attitudes towards refugees, it is also necessary to consider more context-specific
variables, such as how refugees are viewed in light of collective memories of victimization experienced by the host society. We
discuss these processes in the following.
Collective victim beliefs
Individual beliefs about the ingroup’s historical victimization—i.e., collective victim beliefs (Vollhardt, 2012a)—are shaped by
collective memories that are passed down generations and communicated through memorials, history books, anthems, and other
cultural products (Bilali & Ross, 2012; Olick, 1999). However, group members may endorse these representations of the ingroup’s
history (including victimization events) to different degrees, and prefer different construals of the ingroup’s victimization that are
shared within the group (e.g., Klar, Schori-Eyal, & Klar, 2013; Rimé, Bouchat, Klein, & Licata, 2015; Vollhardt & Nair, 2018).
Comparative victim beliefs have received particular attention in the emerging social psychological literature on collective victimhood
(Noor, Vollhardt, Mari, & Nadler, 2017). Specifically, people may compare their ingroup’s victimization with other groups’ ex-
periences, and conclude that their ingroup’s suffering is similar (i.e., inclusive victim consciousness: Vollhardt, 2015); or they may
perceive their group’s victimization to be unique and distinct, or more severe (i.e., exclusive victim consciousness; or competitive
victimhood when only referring to the perceived greater severity; Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012; Vollhardt, 2012a).
95
Effects of collective victim beliefs on intergroup relations

The degree to which people endorse inclusive or exclusive victim consciousness can help explain intergroup attitudes and support
for related policies. Collective memories have a normative function, defining the course of action the group should follow (Rimé
et al., 2015). For example, exclusive construals of the ingroup’s victimization are often linked to perceived rights to defend and
protect the ingroup from future harm (Klar et al., 2013; Vollhardt, 2012b). Accordingly, across different conflict settings, the per-
ception that the ingroup suffered more than the other conflict party was associated with less forgiveness and willingness for re-
conciliation, less trust toward the other conflict party, greater social distance, and more support for exclusionary policies and leaders
(e.g., Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008; Vollhardt & Bilali, 2015). Conversely, inclusive construals of the ingroup’s victimization often
imply perceived obligations to help other groups in need and prevent future violence against them (Klar et al., 2013; Vollhardt,
2012b; Warner, Wohl, & Branscombe, 2014). Accordingly, the perception that the ingroup and the outgroup in a conflict suffered in
similar ways was associated with greater willingness to forgive and reconcile with the other conflict party, and support inclusive and
conciliatory policies and leaders (e.g., Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013; Vollhardt & Bilali, 2015; Vollhardt et al., 2019).
Global comparisons—that is, perceiving other groups worldwide to have suffered in similar versus distinct ways—have similar
effects. For example, global exclusive victim consciousness predicted resentment toward a former perpetrator group and support for
Muslim surveillance, as well as conflict-enhancing policies (Vollhardt et al., 2019). Global inclusive victim consciousness, in contrast,
predicted support for reconciliation with the former perpetrator group and conciliatory policies (Vollhardt et al., 2019; Cohrs,
McNeill, & Vollhardt, 2015). Pertinent to the present studies, global inclusive victim consciousness also predicted support for refugees
among four different samples (minority groups in the U.S. and in India; Vollhardt et al., 2016, 2018).
In some contexts, however, conflict-specific or global comparisons may be less relevant. For example, when groups are not
currently involved in a conflict, conflict-specific comparisons are irrelevant. Similarly, statements such as “the suffering of my group
is unique in world history” (Vollhardt et al., 2016) may seem exaggerated when the violence was less severe or pervasive, making
global comparisons less reliable. For this reason, two recent studies explored regional comparisons instead, which are more relevant in
some contexts—including Central Eastern Europe, where several neighboring countries experienced similar histories of collective
violence due to the same wars, occupations, and political regimes (Bibó, 1946; Bideleux & Jeffries, 2007). Accordingly, in a Hun-
garian and in a Polish sample, regional exclusive victim consciousness (i.e., the perception that the ingroup’s suffering was un-
paralleled in Central Eastern Europe) predicted resentment towards former enemy groups and support for surveillance of Muslims,
while regional inclusive victim consciousness (the perception that other Central Eastern European nations suffered in similar ways as
the ingroup) predicted reconciliation with historical enemy groups and increased willingness to accept Syrian refugees (Vollhardt
et al., 2019).
Event-specific victim beliefs and historical analogies

While providing initial evidence of the role of region-specific victim beliefs in predicting attitudes towards refugees, these studies
have several short comings. First, only one measure of perceived social distance was used, rather than assessing more concrete policy
opinions, explicit rejection of refugees, and actual behaviors. Second, the potential link with the collective memory of Hungarian
refugees in 1956 was not investigated, making it unclear if this event-specific comparison was relevant above and beyond general
inclusive and exclusive victim consciousness. We argue that when there is a clear basis for comparison with a specific event—such as
the collective memory of the Hungarian refugee crisis in 1956 and the present-day refugees to Europe—these event-specific com-
parisons of victimization are powerful predictors of attitudes towards groups whose fate may be seen as resembling the ingroup’s.
Inclusive event-specific victim consciousness has some conceptual overlap with historical analogies, which are defined as com-
parisons between a present and a past situation (Ghilani et al., 2017). These analogies can affect intergroup attitudes through several
functions that include defining the roles of current actors, making decisions, and persuading others (Ghilani et al., 2017). Some
research suggests that historical analogies can shape attitudes toward minority groups. For example, among Dutch participants the
historical analogy between past Nazi collaborators’ ideology and current far-right ideology predicted less opposition to Muslims’
rights (Smeekes, Van Acker, Verkuyten, & Vanbeselaere, 2014). However, the research on historical analogies differs from event-
specific victim consciousness in that historical analogies can concern any historical event and the use of these analogies by any given
group (whether it is a perpetrator, bystander, or victim of collective violence). In contrast, event-specific victim consciousness is
specifically about historical victimization experienced by the ingroup, and comparisons of this victimization (which can entail si-
milarities but also perceived differences, i.e., the rejection of the analogy) with an outgroup’s past or present-day experience of
victimization.
The hungarian context
Collective memories of Hungarian history focus on the fact that revolutions and independence wars, which began with trium-
phant victories, were mostly followed by defeats and losses (László, 2013). After the defeat in the battle of Mohács in 1526, Hungary
was under Ottoman rule for 150 years, followed by the Habsburgs. After World War I, the Trianon Peace Treaty resulted in Hungary
loosing 72 % of its territory and 64 % of its population (Romsics, 1999). The Trianon Treaty has become the “chosen trauma” for
Hungarians (Fülöp & László, 2013). World War II brought the occupation of Hungary by Nazi Germany and the deportation of
Hungarian Jews. The collaboration with the government led by the Arrow Cross party, and the role as victim versus collaborator,
remains a sensitive issue (Hirschberger, Kende, & Weinstein, 2016). Losing the war, Hungary found itself under Soviet rule. The
uprising of the Hungarian people in 1956 was crushed by Soviet troops, resulting in approximately 3000 deaths and 200,000
Hungarian refugees who were given asylum in 35 countries. This was the largest wave of refugees in Europe after the Second World
96
War (Cartledge, 2011). The Hungarian refugee crisis of 1956 has recently received increased attention because of today’s refugees.
Hungarian society, politicians (Surján, 2017), historians (Mink, 2017), journalists (Stumpf, 2016), and even ‘56ers’ (Hungarian
refugees of 1956; McLaughlin, 2016) are far from agreeing whether the two events are comparable, as discussed earlier.
Hungarian collective memories of the repeated experiences of defeat have led to a sense of national vulnerability and collective
victimhood (Fülöp et al., 2014). However, only scarce social psychological research so far has examined collective victim beliefs in
the Hungarian context. The present study aimed to expand on this research and examine the role of collective victim beliefs in
Hungary in predicting attitudes and behaviors towards refugees, above and beyond the effects of variables typically assessed as
predictors of responses to refugees.
Hypotheses and overview of studies
We hypothesized that regional inclusive victim consciousness will predict positive attitudes and prosocial behavioral intentions
towards refugees, while regional exclusive victim consciousness will predict negative, hostile attitudes towards refugees. Based on
previous findings in other contexts (e.g., Vollhardt & Bilali, 2015; Vollhardt et al., 2016), we do not expect exclusive victim con-
sciousness to predict (less) positive attitudes and prosocial behavioral intentions, or inclusive victim consciousness to predict (less)
negative, hostile attitudes towards refugees.
Additionally, we expect that event-specific inclusive victim consciousness—comparing the Hungarian refugees in 1956 with the
present-day situation that has been described as a “refugee crisis” (i.e., historical analogies between ingroup and outgroup suffer-
ing)—will be a stronger predictor of attitudes towards refugees than regional victim consciousness; and that it will mediate the effects
of regional victim consciousness on attitudes towards refugees. We test this novel prediction in Study 2. In both studies, we control for
several key predictors of attitudes and behaviors towards refugees to test the effects of victim consciousness above and beyond these
established predictors.
Study 1
Method
Sample
Three hundred and seventy-two participants completed the study: 123 men and 249 women ranging in age from 17 to 80 (M =
33.05, SD = 14.64). Participants completed the survey online (n = 139) or as a paper and pencil version (n = 233). Three parti-
cipants had missing responses on more than five items in our main predictor variable and were excluded from the analyses (re-
maining N = 369). We conducted a statistical power analysis with G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Given the
number of predictors and control variables, α = 0.05 and a medium effect size of Cohen f2 = .15 (Cohen, 1988), the sample size
needed to achieve a power level of 0.95 in multiple regressions is 172 participants, which is met by our sample size.
The majority (58.9 %) of participants had a university degree, 31.7 % reported a high-school degree (including students currently
completing a university degree), and less than 10 % did not have a high-school degree. 36 participants lived in the capital, 202 in
cities with county’s rights (i.e., bigger cities), 75 in other cities, and 54 in villages (two did not report their place of residence).
Measures
All items were assessed on 7-point scales from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Context-specific measures of
attitudes towards refugees were pilot tested and factor-analyzed1 . A complete list of all items used in this analysis is provided in the
Appendix.
Predictor variable: Regional victim consciousness. 24 items, closely adapted from established measures of global and conflict-specific
victim consciousness (Cohrs et al., 2015; Vollhardt et al., 2016) and piloted in a previous study (Vollhardt et al., 2019), assessed
regional victim beliefs, that is, comparisons with the suffering of other groups in the region. Eight items each measured regional
exclusive victim consciousness and regional inclusive victim consciousness. Eight items assessing personal centrality of ingroup
victimization served as a control variable, to ensure that the predictor variables’ effects did not merely reflect differences in how
personally relevant people though the ingroup’s historical victimization was (see Vollhardt el al., 2016). We conducted an
exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood extraction, oblique promax rotation) on the 24 items. Four items were deleted due
to cross-loadings (over .30) and one item did not have a factor loading above .40 (Costello & Osborne, 2005). The remaining items
1
In a pilot study, Hungarian university students (N = 357) completed our self-designed measures of attitudes towards refugees, along with other
items that were beyond the scope of the current paper. Explanatory factor analysis was conducted on 27 self-designed items using maximum
likelihood estimation with promax rotation. Cross-loading items were excluded. The scree plot showed a clear break after the second factor, and a
smaller break after the fourth factor. However, only 2 similarly-worded items describing the support for bringing back conscription loaded on the
fourth factor, which could not be meaningfully interpreted. Therefore, we used three factors in Study 1: Factor 1 was labelled ‘Support for anti-
refugee policies”, Factor 2 was labelled ‘Support for pro-refugee policies’ and Factor 3 was labelled ‘Willingness for personal involvement in helping
the refugees.’ These factors had good internal consistencies in the pilot study (α was .85 for ‘Support of anti-refugee policies’, α was .76 for ‘Support
of pro-refugee policies’, α was .81 for ‘Willingness for personal involvement in helping the refugees.’).
97
Table 1
Factor Loadings (Exploratory Factor Analysis for Regional Victim Consciousness Items (Study 1).
Exclusive VC Inclusive VC Personal Centrality of In-group
Victimization
No other Central and Eastern European nation has suffered as much as the Hungarian .98 .02 -.06
people.
There is no suffering in the history of other East Central European nations which is .93 .01 -.07
comparable to the Hungarians’ suffering.
There is no other nation in East Central Europe which went through the same tribulations as .88 -.03 -.03
the Hungarians.
While all experiences of suffering are somewhat different, the Hungarian experience is truly .79 .01 .05
unique.
While other nations in Central and Eastern Europe (have been) harmed in the past and the .71 -.05 .10
present, the Hungarian experiences is overall much more severe.
The harm Hungarians suffered is unique in Central and Eastern Europe’s history. .67 -.07 .05
Saying that the other Central and Eastern European nations’ experiences of suffering is .50 -.15 -.11
similar to the Hungarian’s (experiences) is just wrong.
Generally speaking there are other nations in the Central and Eastern European regions that -.03 .77 -.09
have a history of hardship like the Hungarians.
The degree to which some other Central and Eastern European nations have suffered is -.06 .75 .04
comparable to how much the Hungarian people have suffered.
Despite some clear differences, the harm of other Central and Eastern European nations is -.03 .67 -.01
similar to the Hungarian people’s experiences.
There are other Central and Eastern European nations that suffered as much as the -.19 .66 -.09
Hungarian people.
Other nations in Central and Eastern Europe have been repressed/oppressed in similar ways -.09 .55 .01
as Hungarians.
I tend to think or talk about the similarities between the Hungarian experiences of suffering .07 .45 .12
and other Central and Eastern European nations’ experiences of suffering rather than
about the differences.
It is very important (to me) to know about the historical suffering of the Hungarians. .06 .12 .85
I am not very interested in learning more about the suffering of the Hungarian people. (R) .20 .16 -.68
Knowing about how Hungarians have suffered has shaped who I am today. -.04 .02 .66
It is important to me to remember and pass on stories about the Hungarians’ hardship to .25 .10 .59
next generations.
Percent of variance 40.35% 11.85% 4.62%
Note: The bolded figures indicate which factor the item loaded on in the final analysis.
loaded on three factors (see Table 1): seven items measured regional exclusive victim consciousness (α = .93), six items regional
inclusive victim consciousness (α = .83), and four items personal centrality of ingroup victimization (α = .79).
Historical analogies. To further explore associations between history and the present-day refugee situation, an open-ended question
following the outcome measures asked: “Do you think the current refugee situation has any similarity with previous historical event
(s)? If ‘yes,’ please specify which event(s)!” These responses were assigned to a historical event category by the first author.
Outcome variables. Support for increased border protection and military presence to prevent more refugees from entering Hungary was
assessed with five items (e.g., “I agree with the necessity of the fence on the borders of Hungary;” α = .89). Support for pro-refugee
policies was assessed with four items (e.g., “We have to provide financial support for refugees;” α = .81). Three items assessed the
willingness for personal involvement in helping the refugees (e.g., “I am actively involved in helping refugees;” α = .75).
Control variables. We controlled for ingroup glorification (α = .86; e.g. “Relative to other nations, we are a very intelligent nation)
and attachment (α = 88; e.g. “Being Hungarian is an important part of my identity”) with two four-item scales (Roccas, Sagiv,
Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008, adapted to Hungarian by Szabó & László, 2014). Political ideology was assessed on a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (“very left”) to 7 (“very right”). Finally, we controlled for personal centrality of ingroup victimization (see
above) and for demographic characteristics (age, gender, level of education, place of residence).
Procedure
Participants were recruited by research assistants at Pécs University through snowball sampling on social media and through
personal contacts. Participation was voluntary, without compensation, and anonymous. After providing informed consent, partici-
pants completed the demographic questions (including political ideology), followed by the regional victim consciousness measure,
then the outcome variables and open-ended question about perceived similarity with historical events, and finally the national
identification measures. Participants were then thanked and debriefed.
98
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlation for Variables Used in Study 1.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1.Support for increased border protection and military presence – -.59** -.35** .62** -.43** .32** .43** .65** .47**
2.Support for pro-refugee policies – .64** -.39** .40** -.18** -.14** -.39** -.32**
3.Personal involvement – -.17** .22** -.08 -.00 -.14** -.25**
4.Regional exclusive VC – -.63** .39** .44** .72** .47**
5.Regional inclusive VC – -.10 -.17** -.47** -.28**
6.Victimhood centrality – .52** .37** .31**
7.Attachment – .63** .35**
8.Glorification – .41**
9.Political ideology –
M 3.95 3.48 2.90 3.17 4.89 4.26 5.00 3.72 4.23
SD 1.83 1.55 1.55 1.49 1.06 1.43 1.64 1.51 1.44
Note: Personal involvement = Personal involvement in helping refugees; VC = Victim consciousness; Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of
ingroup victimization. Political ideology was assessed using a 7-point scale (1 = extreme left, 7 = extreme right. *p < .05, **p < .01.
Results
We first examined correlations between the main variables (see Table 2, where we also report means and standard deviations). As
expected, regional exclusive victim consciousness correlated positively with support for increased border protection and military
presence, and negatively with support for pro-refugee policies and willingness to help the refugees. Also as expected, regional
inclusive victim consciousness was positively correlated with support for pro-refugee policies and willingness to help the refugees.
Additionally, regional inclusive victim consciousness was negatively correlated with support for increased border protection and
military presence. There was a significant, negative relationship between regional exclusive victim consciousness and regional in-
clusive victim consciousness.
We used multiple regression analyses to test our predictions and examine the effects of victim consciousness simultaneously while
accounting for relevant control variables (see Table 3). As hypothesized, regional exclusive victim consciousness predicted support
for increased border protection and military presence, but not prosocial attitudes or behavioral intentions towards refugees. Con-
versely, and as hypothesized, regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted prosocial attitudes and behavioral intentions (support
for pro-refugee policies and willingness to personally help the refugees); but not support for increased border protection and military
presence. The effects were significant above and beyond established predictors of attitudes towards refugees (e.g., political ideology,
national identification).
Discussion
Study 1 shows that construals of historical ingroup victimization—specifically, how people compare their group’s historical
victimization with experiences of other groups in the region—are important predictors of attitudes toward refugees in the present.
Specifically, regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted prosocial attitudes toward refugees: willingness to personally help
them, and support for pro-refugee policies such as opening borders or supporting refugee-aid organizations. Likewise, regional
exclusive victim consciousness predicted support for increased border protection and military presence. These relationships were
significant even when controlling for other established predictors of intergroup attitudes in this context, ruling out that the effects are
merely due to demographic differences or differences in political ideology or national identity. These findings demonstrate the
importance of how collective memories of ingroup victimization are construed, and that the ingroup’s historical experience of col-
lective victimization relates to attitudes towards refugees in the present. Thus, collective victim beliefs are crucial for understanding
intergroup attitudes in societies with strong collective memories of ingroup victimization (László, 2013; Vollhardt, 2012a).
However, some limitations of the study need to be considered. For example, we did not control for different degrees of empathy or
perspective-taking that are both associated with prosocial orientations (Batson & Oleson, 1991; Epley & Caruso, 2008). We address
this limitation in Study 2. Additionally, while a strength of this study is the range of different outcome measures, these are all self-
report measures. In Study 2 we address this limitation by adding a measure of actual behavior.
Another limitation is the relatively open-ended nature of the regional victim consciousness measure. First, the items do not
explicitly mention the current refugees as a comparison group. While this provides a more conservative test of the hypothesis,
participants may think of different groups when completing these measures (as evidenced by the answers to the open-ended questions
about historical analogies which we discuss below). Hungarian history includes refugee experiences after the world wars and in 1956,
but also invasions by the Ottomans, Mongols, and others. Thus, Hungarian history has rich opportunities to anchor the current events
and make meaning of them in different ways, and with different historical analogies in mind (Ghilani et al., 2017; Liu & Hilton,
2005). Accordingly, participants’ answers to our open-ended question varied. Only roughly half of the sample (130 participants) said
that there was a historical analogy. Nearly one fourth of those who responded (23 %) named the Hungarians’ refugee experiences as
similar to the present-day refugee situation, indicating that their responses to the inclusive victim consciousness and outcome
measures were likely driven by these perceived similarities. However, other participants mentioned other historical analogies such as
the Migration Periods in Europe (22 %) or the Balkan Wars (3.7 %), suggesting that they did not think of the similarity between
99
Z.P. Szabó, et al.
Table 3
Multiple Regression Predicting Support for Increased Border Protection and Military Presence, Pro-Refugee Policies, and Personal Involvement in Helping Refugees.
DV 1: Support for Increased Border Protection and Military Presence DV 2: Support for Pro-Refugee Policies DV 3: Personal Involvement in Helping Refugees
β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

Age -.00 .01 [-.01, .01] .92 .01 .01 [-.01, .01] .83 .08 .01 [-.00, .02] .16
Gender -.04 .15 [-.45, .14] .31 .08 .16 [-.04, .58] .09 -.01 .17 [-.37, .31] .86
Place of residence -.04 .09 [-.26, .08] .28 .02 .09 [-.15, .21] .74 -.02 .10 [-.23, .16] .71
Level of education -.06 .07 [-.26, .03] .12 .08 .08 [-.03, 28] .11 .12 .09 [.02, .36] .03
100
Political Ideology .18 .06 [.11, .33] < .001 -.16 .06 [-.28, -.06] < .001 -.21 .06 [-.34, -.09] < .001
Attachment .06 .06 [-.06, .19] .31 .16 .07 [.02, .28] .02 .11 .07 [-.04, .24] .16
Glorification .29 .08 [.20, .52] < .001 -.28 .09 [-.46, -.12] < .001 -.02 .09 [-.20, .16] .81
Victimhood Centrality .04 .06 [-.07, .17] .43 -.08 .06 [-.22, .04] .17 -.07 .07 [-.21, .07] .30
Regional Exclusive VC .26 .09 [.16, .50] < .001 -.01 .09 [-.19, .16] .89 -.01 .10 [-.20, .18] .92
Regional Inclusive VC -.07 .09 [-.31, .05] .15 .21 .09 [.13, .50] < .001 .16 .10 [.03, .43] .02
Model summary R2 = .524, F (10, 334) = 36.720, p < .001 R2 = .263, F (10,334) = 11.914, p < .001 R2 = .125, F (10,334) = 4.773, p < .001
Note. Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization, VC = Victim consciousness.

historical Hungarian refugee experiences and present-day refugees when completing the measures of inclusive victim consciousness.
In Study 2, we examined more explicitly how inclusive versus exclusive victim beliefs regarding Hungarians’ historical refugee
experiences and the experiences of the current refugees affect attitudes towards these refugees, and how these event-specific com-
parisons relate to more general comparisons of suffering.
Study 2
To directly assess perceived similarities and differences between the suffering of Hungarian refugees after the fall of the 1956
revolution and the current refugees, in Study 2we introduced a new measure of event-specific victim consciousness. This measure
focused on endorsement or rejection of historical analogies (Ghilani et al., 2017) between the historical Hungarian refugee situation
and the present-day refugee situation.
(H1). We hypothesized that event-specific victim consciousness would predict attitudes and behaviors towards refugees above and
beyond regional victim consciousness (and other relevant control variables). Specifically, we hypothesized that people who recognize
similarities between historical experiences of Hungarian refugees (a specific ingroup victimization event) and present-day refugees (a
specific outgroup victimization event) would have more positive, prosocial attitudes and behaviors towards these refugees.
Conversely, participants who do not perceive similarities between the in-group’s and the out-group’s victimization events would
support anti-refugee policies.
(H2). We hypothesized that the effects of more general, region-specific victim beliefs from Study 1 would replicate, though we
expected the effects to be weaker when controlling for event-specific victim beliefs.
(H3). We also hypothesized that the effects of the more general, regional victim beliefs on attitudes and behaviors would be mediated
by the more concrete, event-specific victim beliefs (for similar arguments see Schori-Eyal, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 20142).
To replicate the effects from Study 1, we included the same outcome and control variables. However, we also aimed to extend the
findings and address several limitations in Study 1. Therefore, in Study 2 we also controlled for trait empathic concern and per-
spective taking (Davis, 1983), and we extended the outcome measures: First, we added a measure of actual behavior. Second, we
extended the anti-refugee policy items to include an issue that was highly relevant at the time the study was conducted, right after a
set of amendments to Hungarian asylum laws was adopted. The so-called ‘pushback law’ allowed all asylum seekers to be detained
and forced back into Serbia (Tóth & Kilic, 2017). Therefore, we also included items assessing support for detention and crim-
inalization of the refugees, which is a more extreme policy than the one assessed in Study 1.
Method
Sample
Two hundred and eighty participants completed the study: 96 men and 182 women (2 participants did not answer this question),
ranging in age from 18 to 78 (M = 26.03, SD = 9.47). Participants completed the survey online (n = 231) or as a paper and pencil
version (n =49). We dropped six participants with missing responses on more than five victim consciousness items and three
participants who did not complete the outcome measures from the analyses. The resulting sample size was 271. The statistical power
analysis (same procedure as in Study 1) revealed that our sample size was appropriate: considering the number of predictors and
control variables, α = .05, and a medium effect size of Cohen f2 = .15, the average sample size needed to achieve a power level of .95
in multiple regressions was 189 participants.
41 % of the sample had a university degree, and 47.2 % had finished high school (including participants who were currently
pursuing a higher degree). 11.8 % of the participants did not have a high school degree. 111 participants lived in the capital city, 64
lived in cities with county’s rights, 64 lived in other cities, and 30 lived in villages (2 participants did not answer this question).
Measures
All items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The full item list of all
measures is in the Appendix.
Predictor variables. To reduce the survey length, we used a shortened, 12-item version of the regional victim consciousness measure
(Vollhardt et al., 2019). Eight items assessed event-specific victim consciousness. These items were developed for this study and assess
perceived similarities and differences between the suffering of the refugees coming to Europe in the present and the suffering of the
Hungarian refugees after the defeat of the 1956 revolution against the Soviet Union (e.g., “The degree to which the refugees have
suffered is comparable to how much the Hungarian refugees suffered in 1956”).
2
Schori-Eyal and colleagues (2014) argue that there are different layers of collective victimhood in the Jewish Israeli context that relate to
victimization in different time periods and different contexts: historical victimhood of Jews in Europe and other parts of the world, general conflict
victimhood related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and conflict event victimhood related to specific events in which Jewish Israelis were harmed
during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The effects of the more general historical victimhood on attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were
mediated by the more concrete conflict event victimhood (Schori-Eyal et al., 2014, Study 3).
101
Z.P. Szabó, et al.
Table 4
Exploratory Factor Analysis for Regional Victim Consciousness and Event-Specific Victim Consciousness Items (Study 2).
Regional Exclusive VC Regional Inclusive VC Event Specific VC Victimhood Centrality
No other Central and Eastern European nation has suffered as much as the Hungarian people. .88 .04 -.06 -.07
No other Central and Eastern European nations went through similar hardships as the Hungarians. .88 -.07 .04 -.02
There is no suffering in the history of other East Central European nations which is comparable to the Hungarians’ suffering. .79 -.04 .01 -.01
While all experiences of suffering are somewhat different, the Hungarian (experience) is truly unique. .62 -.05 -.06 .19
Despite some clear differences, the harm of other Central and Eastern European nations is similar to the Hungarian people’s .04 .88 -.04 -.01
experiences.
The degree to which some other Central and Eastern European nations have suffered is comparable to how much the -.14 .75 -.02 .02
Hungarian people have suffered.
Other nations in Central and Eastern Europe have been repressed / oppressed in similar ways as Hungarians. -.04 .69 -.05 .05
The degree to which the refugees have suffered is comparable to how much the Hungarian refugees suffered in 1956. .05 -.03 .84 -.01
102
Despite some clear differences, the harm experienced by the refugees is similar to the Hungarian refugees’ experiences in .09 .12 .80 .12
1956.
The refugees have been persecuted in similar ways as the Hungarian refugees in 1956. .02 -.04 .73 -.07
The hardships Hungarian refugees experienced in 1956 are different / distinct from what refugees today experience. .06 .11 -.57 .05
The suffering of the refugees is not comparable to the suffering of the Hungarian refugees’ in 1956. .12 .10 -.55 -.13
The refugees have been harmed to the same degree as the Hungarian refugees in 1956. -.08 .20 .48 -.13
Knowing about the misdeeds against the Hungarians has influenced my opinions on many social and political issues. -.03 -.02 .03 .86
It is important to me to remember and pass on stories about the Hungarians' hardship to the next generations. .03 .05 -.05 .77
I am not very interested in learning more about the suffering of the Hungarian people. .11 .09 -.01 -.77
Knowing about how Hungarians have suffered has shaped who I am today. .11 .13 .05 .60
Percent of variance 12.97% 4.13% 30.55% 10.40%
Note: VC = Victim consciousness, Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization. The bolded figures indicate which factor the item loads on.
To examine whether regional and event-specific victim consciousness are distinct factors, we conducted an exploratory factor
analysis on the 20 items (maximum likelihood extraction, promax rotation). Three cross-loading items were deleted. The exploratory
analysis with an eigenvalue = 1 setting yielded four factors, and the scree plot also suggested four factors. The factor structure of the
regional victim consciousness items replicated that from Study 1: The items assessing regional exclusive victim consciousness, re-
gional inclusive victim consciousness, and personal centrality of in-group victimization loaded on three distinct factors (see Table 4).
The event-specific victim consciousness items formed a separate factor. Unlike regional victim consciousness, the inclusive and
exclusive event-specific victim consciousness items did not load on separate factors and were opposite ends of one scale. Higher
scores on this measure indicate greater levels of perceived similarities between the suffering of refugees now and the Hungarian
refugees in 1956. We therefore refer to this factor as event-specific inclusive victim consciousness.
The final measures included four items assessing regional exclusive victim consciousness (α = .89), three items measuring re-
gional inclusive victim consciousness (α = 0.83), four items for personal centrality of in-group victimization (α = .83), and six items
assessing event-specific inclusive victim consciousness (α = .83).
Outcome variables
Affect toward refugees were measured with a feeling thermometer (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993), asking participants to indicate
their overall feeling toward refugees, on a scale from 0 (extremely unfavorable) to 100 (extremely favorable).
Support for anti-refugee policies was measured with two sets of items. First, we used the same five items as in Study 1 (α = .90) to
assess support for increased border protection and military presence to prevent refugees from entering. The second set of eight items
measured participants’ support of the more extreme policy of detention and criminalization of refugees (e.g., “Climbing the border fence
or damaging it should result in criminal charges”; α = .94).
The same three items as in Study 1 measured willingness for personal involvement in helping refugees (α = .87). To assess actual
prosocial behavior towards refugees, we offered participants a chance to enter a raffle at the end of the survey and we informed the
participants that one participant would win 10.000 HUF (∼€ 31; the average hourly wage in Hungary was €7.6 in 2017; Eurostat,
2019). After entering the raffle, we asked the participants the following question: “If you win the lottery, will you offer part or all of
your money to MigSzol [“Migrant Solidarity Group of Hungary”]?” Participants could provide their answer by means of a yes or no
choice format. If they answered yes, we also asked: “How much would you offer?” Participants had no reason to believe that they
would be asked again to reconsider their choice if they won, and their answer therefore indicates actual donation behavior. The raffle
was conducted after the data collection, with a random number generator.
Control variables
We used the same measures as in Study 1 to assess personal centrality of ingroup victimization (see above), ingroup glorification
(α = .85) and attachment (α = .87), political ideology, and demographic variables. Additionally, we assessed trait empathic concern
with four items (α = .78; e.g., “I am often quite touched by things that I see happen”) and perspective taking with five items (α = .72;
e.g., “I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both”; Davis, 1983).
Procedures
Research assistants from two universities in Budapest used snowball sampling and personal contacts like in Study 1 to recruit
participants. The participants first answered the demographic questions, then the regional and event-specific victim consciousness
items, followed by the outcome variables (except the raffle), and other control variables (national identification, empathic concern,
perspective taking). At the end of the survey, participants could enter their e-mail address in the raffle. Participants were then
thanked and debriefed.
Results
We first examined correlations between the main variables (see Table 5, which also includes the means and standard deviations).
Then we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses. In Step 1, we entered the regional victim beliefs and the control
variables. This allows for comparing the findings of Study 1 and 2. In Step 2, we entered event-specific victim consciousness to test if
it explained additional variance. Finally, to test the mediation hypothesis, we used the bootstrapping method recommended by Hayes
(2018) to obtain bias corrected 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects (Model 4), controlling for the same
variables as in the regression analyses.
Regression analyses
Regional exclusive victim consciousness predicted support for both anti-refugee policies in Step 1, even after controlling for
political ideology, national identification, trait empathy and perspective taking. In Step 2, when inclusive event-specific victim
consciousness was added, regional exclusive victim consciousness was no longer a significant predictor of support for anti-refugee
policies, while inclusive event-specific victim consciousness predicted decreased support for anti-refugee policies (see Table 6).
Similarly, and as expected, in Step 1 regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted positive affect toward refugees, as mea-
sured by the feeling thermometer (see Table 7). Unexpectedly however, the findings from Study 1 for personal willingness to help the
refugees was not replicated. After adding inclusive event-specific victim consciousness to the model in Step 2, regional inclusive
victim consciousness was no longer a significant predictor of positive affect toward refugees (as measured by the feeling
103
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlation for Variables Used in Study 2.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
1.Border protection – .83** -.53** -.76** .56** -.37** .37** -.48** .44** .61** -.28** -.25** .52**
2.Detention – -.52** -.77** .56** -.34** .38** -.52** .41** .59** -.37** -.31** .56**
3.Personal Involvement – .68** -.24** .19** -.12 .39** -.17** -.30** .32** .31** -.35**
4.Affect toward Refugees – -.48** .35** -.29** .47** -.33** -.53** .35** .32** -.56**
5.Regional Exclusive VC – -.59** .38** -.35** .33** .66** -.20** -.19** .43**
6.Regional Inclusive VC – -.15** .33** -.12** -.43** .15** .09 -.20**
7. Victimhood Centrality – -.13* .60** .50** .04 -.01 .45**
8.Event-Specific VC – -.13* -.31** −19** .21** -.25**
9.Attachment – .58** .05 .03 .38**
10.Glorification – -.13* -.16** .45**
11.Empathy – .48** -.21**
12.Perspective Taking – -.11
13.Political Ideology –
M 3.51 3.52 2.34 45.07 3.02 5.00 4.05 3.66 4.89 3.01 5.57 5.27 3.91
SD 1.86 1.80 1.37 27.03 1.48 1.24 1.45 1.25 1.66 1.39 1.08 1.00 1.35
Note: Border Protection = Support for increased border protection and military presence, Detention = Support for Detention and criminalization of
refugees, Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization, Empathy = Empathic concern. Political ideology was assessed using
a 7-point scale (1 = extreme left, 7 = extreme right).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
thermometer) either. However, and as predicted, inclusive event-specific victim consciousness predicted both measures of prosocial
attitudes towards refugees, above and beyond the control variables.
Mediation analyses
To test whether event-specific victim consciousness mediated the effect of regional victim beliefs on the outcome variables, we
used Hayes’ (2018) PROCESS Model 4, with 5000 bootstrap samples and 95% confidence intervals. We controlled for the same
variables as in the regression analyses. The total, indirect, and direct effects are illustrated in Figs. 1–4.
Supporting our hypothesis, the indirect effect of regional exclusive victim consciousness through event-specific inclusive victim
consciousness on support for increased border protection and military presence was significant, b = .07, SE = .04, 95% CI [.00, .14].
Thus, the effect of regional exclusive victim beliefs on support for increased border protection and military presence was mediated by
event-specific inclusive victim consciousness (see Fig. 1). The indirect effect of regional exclusive victim consciousness through event-
specific inclusive victim consciousness on support of detention and criminalization was also significant, b = .06, SE = .04, 95% CI
[.00, .14]. The 95% confidence interval did not include zero, thus the effect of regional exclusive victim consciousness on support of
detention and criminalization was mediated by event-specific inclusive victim consciousness (see Fig. 2).
The indirect effect of regional inclusive victim consciousness via event-specific victim consciousness on attitudes toward refugees
was significant, b = 1.33, SE = .46, 95% CI [.58, 2.41], indicating that the effects of regional inclusive victim consciousness were
mediated by event-specific inclusive victim consciousness (see Fig. 3). For the second prosocial outcome, willingness to personally
help the refugees, neither the direct effect of regional victim consciousness, nor the total effect were significant. However, the indirect
effect of regional inclusive victim consciousness through event-specific inclusive victim consciousness was significant, b = .07, SE =
.03, 95%CI [.03, .14]. The 95% confidence interval did not include zero, suggesting a significant indirect effect. According to Hayes
(2018), an indirect effect can be different from zero even when the total effect is not, and thus this finding can be interpreted as
evidence of mediation (see Fig. 4).
Binary logistic regression: prosocial behavior (donations) toward refugees

158 participants entered their name into the lottery to win 10.000 HUF. 105 said that they would offer some or all of their reward
to MigSzol, a civil society organization helping the refugees. Because of this dichotomous outcome (yes or no choice format), we used
a binary logistic regression with the control variables used in previous analyses and the regional and event-specific victim beliefs as
predictors. To capture effect sizes, we report standardized beta weights (β), Wald statistics, and Odds Ratios (OR). The results (see
Table 8) indicated that inclusive event-specific victim consciousness and empathic concern predicted willingness to donate the
reward to MigSzol. The other predictors were not significant. Because the subsample of those who donated was lower than the
suggested sample size for correlational analyses (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013), we did not analyze the sum of donated money as an
outcome variable.
Discussion
Results of Study 2 supported our hypotheses and either directly or conceptually replicated the findings of Study 1, with one
exception (regional inclusive victim consciousness did not predict willingness to personally help the refugees). Even when controlling
for important predictors, including trait empathy and perspective taking, regional victim beliefs still predicted attitudes towards
104
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees.
DV 1: Support for Increased Border Protection and Military Presence
Step 1 Step 2
Variable β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

Age -.05 .01 [-.03, .01] .27 -.09 .01 [-.04, .00] .05
Gender -.03 .19 [-.50, .25] .51 -.02 .08 [-.43, .26] .62
Place of Residence .09 .09 [-.01, .33] .06 .09 .08 [.00, .32] .05
Level of Education -.03 .09 [-.22, .13] .59 -.03 .08 [-.21, .11] .53
Political Ideology .24 .08 [.19, .49] < .001 .21 .07 [.15, .43] < .001
Empathic Concern -.10 .09 [-.35, .02] .07 -.09 .09 [-.33, .02] .08
Perspective Taking -.11 .10 [-.39, -.01] .04 -.07 .09 [-.31, .05] .15
Attachment .16 .07 [.04, .32] .01 .16 .07 [.05, .31] .01
Glorification .23 .10 [.13, .51] < .001 .21 .09 [.10, .46] < .001
Victimhood Centrality -.02 .08 [-.18, .13] .75 -.02 .07 [-.17, .12] .76
Regional Exclusive VC .14 .09 [.00, .35] .05 .12 .08 [-.02, .31] .08
Regional Inclusive VC -.08 .09 [-.29, .04] .14 -.03 .08 [-.20, .12] .61
Event-Specific Inclusive VC -.29 .07 [-.57, -.29] < .001
Model summary Model summary
R2 = .512, F (12, 241) = 21.106, p < .01 R2 = .579, F (13, 240) = 25.420, p < .01
DV 2: Support for Detention and Criminalization of Refugees
Step 1 Step 2
Variable β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

Age .03 .01 [-.01, .02] .46 -.01 .01 [-.02, .02] .90
Gender -.05 .17 [-.53, .16] .29 -.04 .16 [-.46, .17] .36
Place of Residence .04 .08 [-.09, .22] .42 .04 .07 [-.08, .21] .37
Level of Education .01 .08 [-.15, .17] .88 .01 .08 [-.14, .16] .91
Political Ideology .28 .07 [.24, .52] < .001 .24 .07 [.20, .45] < .001
Empathic Concern -.16 .09 [-.44, -.10] < .001 -.16 .08 [-.41, -.10] < .001
Perspective Taking -.13 .09 [-.42, -.06] .01 -.10 .08 [-.34, -.01] .04
Attachment .12 .07 [.00, .26] .05 .12 .06 [.01, .25] .03
Glorification .24 .09 [.14, .49] < .001 .21 .08 [.11, .44] < .001
Victimhood Centrality .02 .07 [-.12, .17] .77 .02 .07 [-.10, .16] .71
Regional Exclusive VC .13 .08 [.00, .32] .05 .11 .08 [-.01, .28] .07
Regional Inclusive VC -.05 .08 [-.23, .08] .36 .01 .07 [-.13, .16] .85
Event-Specific Inclusive VC -.30 .06 [-.56, -.31] < .001
R2 = .555, F (12, 241) = 25.053, p < .01 R2 = .628, F (13, 240) = 31.140, p < .01
Notes: Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization; VC = Victim consciousness; Empathy = Empathic concern. Political
ideology was assessed using a 7-point scale (1 = extreme left, 7 = extreme right).
refugees and related policies. Specifically, regional exclusive victim consciousness consistently predicted support for anti-refugee
policies, across two different measures, while regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted positive affect towards refugees (i.e.,
the feeling thermometer). Extending the findings from Study 1, we found that these effects were consistently, across all four outcome
variables, mediated by event-specific inclusive victim consciousness, a measure of the perceived similarities and differences between
Hungarian refugees’ suffering in 1956 and the current refugees. We developed this measure for this study and introduce it here for the
first time. Further extending Study 1, we used a behavioral measure of donating to a refugee-aid organization and found that event-
specific inclusive victim consciousness also predicted this prosocial behavior.
Historical events, particularly those pertaining to Hungarian victimization, are part of the political discourse in Hungary. Our
results show that the specific historical analogy (Ghilani et al., 2017) with the ingroup victimization of Hungarian refugees in 1956
indeed is closely linked to group members’ attitudes and behaviors toward refugees. Thus, the debates around whether or not the
suffering of the Hungarian refugees in 1956 and the situation of the present-day refugees are similar (Balogh, 2017; Hajnal, 2015)
have important practical implications. In our study, perceived similarities in suffering between the in-group and the out-group
predicted support of pro-refugee policies and prosocial behaviors, while rejecting these similarities predicted support for anti-refugee
policies, including more extreme measures such as detaining refugees.
The finding that event-specific victim consciousness mediated the effects of regional victim consciousness on attitudes and be-
havioral intentions towards refugees is in line with findings from other contexts, where the effects of more general perceptions of
ingroup victimization (e.g., historical victimization of Jews) on conflict-related attitudes were mediated by more specific perceptions
of ingroup victimization (e.g., victimization in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Schori-Eyal et al., 2014). In our research, the more
general, more abstract regional victim beliefs were weaker predictors of attitudes and behaviors towards refugees compared to event-
specific victim beliefs. This makes sense, because the event-specific victim beliefs are more proximal to the specific outcome vari-
ables. Although our study focused on intergroup comparisons of victimization, rather than the mere strength of perceived
105
Table 7
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Affect Toward Refugees.
DV 1: Affect Toward Refugees
Step 1 Step 2
Variable β SE β 95% CI P β SE β 95% CI p

Age .15 .16 [.16, .78] < .001 .16 .15 [.20, .79] < .001
Gender .01 2.76 [-.5.14, 5.74] .91 -.01 2.62 [-5.84, 4.50] .80
Place of Residence -.01 1.29 [-2.89, 2.18] .78 -.02 1.22 [-2.85, 1.96] .72
Level of Education -.01 1.33 [-5.18, .06] .06 -.09 1.26 [-4.71, .26] .08
Political Ideology -.37 1.13 [-9.58, -5.11] < .001 -.34 1.10 [-8.97, -4.73] < .001
Empathic Concern .12 1.40 [.11, 5.64] .04 .12 1.33 [.23, 5.47] .03
Perspective Taking .17 1.44 [1.67, 7.36] < .001 .14 1.37 [1.04, 6.45] .01
Attachment -.07 1.04 [-3.24, .86] .25 -.08 .99 [-3.16, .73] .22
Glorification -.24 1.46 [-7.55, -1.82] < .001 -.20 1.39 [-6.64, -1.17] .01
Victimhood Centrality .06 1.15 [-1.10, 3.44] .31 .05 1.09 [-1.19, 3.11] .38
Regional Exclusive VC -.04 1.30 [-3.24, 1.87] .60 -.01 1.23 [-2.66, 2.19] .85
Regional Inclusive VC .13 1.24 [.33, 5.22] .03 .08 1.19 [-.73, 3.98] .18
Event-Specific Inclusive VC .26 1.07 [3.49, 7.70] < .001
R2 = .507, F (12, 231) = 19.803, p < .01 2
R = .560, F (13, 230) = 22.484, p < .01
DV 2: Personal Involvement
Step 1 Step 2
Variable β SE β 95% CI P β SE β 95% CI p

Age .20 .01 [.01, .05] < .001 .24 .01 [.02, .05] < .001
Gender -.08 .16 [-.56, .09] .16 -.09 .16 [-.57, .04] .09
Place of Residence -.15 .08 [-.35, -.05] .01 -.15 .07 [-.34, -.06] .01
Level of Education -.09 .08 [-.27, .04] .14 -.08 .07 [-.26, .03] .13
Political Ideology -.28 .07 [-.42, -.16] < .001 -.24 .06 [-.37, -.12] < .001
Empathic Concern .19 .08 [.08, .39] < .001 .18 .08 [.07, .38] < .001
Perspective Taking .17 .09 [.07, .40] .01 .14 .08 [.03, .35] .02
Attachment -.03 .06 [-.15, .09] .66 -.04 .06 [-.15, .09] .61
Glorification -.18 .09 [-.35, -.01] .04 -.15 .08 [-.31, .01] .07
Victimhood Centrality .08 .07 [-.06, .21] .27 .08 .07 [-.05, .20] .25
Regional Exclusive VC .13 .08 [-.04, .27] .13 .15 .07 [-.01, .28] .06
Regional Inclusive VC .07 .07 [-.07, .23] .29 .01 .07 [-.13, .15] .86
Event-Specific Inclusive VC .31 .06 [.21, .46] < .001
R2 = .314, F (12, 241) = 9.177, p < .01 R2 = .389, F (13, 240) = 11.740, p < .01
Notes: Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization; VC = Victim consciousness; Empathy = Empathic concern. Political
ideology was assessed using a 7-point scale (1 = extreme left, 7 = extreme right).
Fig. 1. Event-specific inclusive victim consciousness as a mediator of the effect of regional exclusive victim consciousness on support for increased
border protection and military presence in Study 2. Path values represent unstandardized regression coefficients. CI = bias-corrected bootstrap
confidence intervals. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
victimization in different contexts as in Schori-Eyal et al.’s (2014) study, both sets of findings point to the need to examine different
layers of ingroup victimization with different reference points of collective victimhood, and how they relate to each other.
Accordingly, a contribution and strength of the present study is to introduce event-specific victim beliefs and examine their
relationship with regional victim beliefs. This extends previous literature that has focused on either global or conflict-specific victim
beliefs (see Vollhardt, 2012a). Another strength of the present study is that it included a measure of actual behavior, and not only self-
reported attitudes or behavioral intentions (see Doliński, 2018). However, we also note that the donation of a raffle prize in the future
may differ from donation behavior of money already in hand or other prosocial actions, and future research should therefore use a
106
Fig. 2. Event-specific inclusive victim consciousness as a mediator of the effect of regional exclusive victim consciousness on support of detention
and criminalization of refugees in Study 2. Path values represent unstandardized regression coefficients. CI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Fig. 3. Event-specific inclusive victim consciousness as a mediator of the effect of regional inclusive victim consciousness on affect toward the
refugees (feeling thermometer) in Study 2. Path values represent unstandardized regression coefficients. CI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Fig. 4. Event-specific inclusive victim consciousness as a mediator of the effect of regional inclusive victim consciousness on willingness for personal
involvement in helping refugees in Study 2. Path values represent unstandardized regression coefficients. CI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
more direct behavioral measure. Finally, this study directly or conceptually replicated and extended the findings of Study 1, por-
traying a consistent picture in the Hungarian context: regional and event-specific inclusive victim beliefs predict positive intergroup
attitudes and behaviors, while regional and event-specific exclusive victim beliefs predict negative intergroup attitudes.
General discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate the relationship between beliefs regarding historical ingroup victimization and atti-
tudes toward present-day refugees in Hungary. We hypothesized that participants expressing greater levels of exclusive victim
consciousness—
focusing on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the in-group’s own suffering in the past—would support policies excluding and
harming refugees in the present, while participants endorsing a greater degree of inclusive victim consciousness—focusing on the
similarities between the in-group’s past and other group’s present suffering—would support pro-refugee policies and display prosocial
behaviors towards refugees in the present. We further hypothesized that event-specific victim beliefs (i.e., historical analogies fo-
cusing specifically on similarities between the present-day refugees’ suffering and the suffering of the 200,000 Hungarians who left
the country after the fall of the 1956 Revolution) would be stronger predictors of intergroup attitudes than the more general regional
victim beliefs that do not specify the groups, times, or events for comparison. In both studies we found evidence supporting our
hypotheses. In Study 1 we found that regional exclusive victim consciousness predicted support for increased border protection and
military presence, while regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted support for pro-refugee policies and pro-social behavioral
107
Table 8
Results of Binary Logistic Regression on Donation to Refugee Organization.
Variable Donation
β SE Wald P
Age .01 .02 .17 .68

Gender -.44 .47 .85 .36
Place of residence -.02 .22 .01 .91
Level of education .01 .22 .00 .95
Political Ideology -.29 .20 2.06 .15
Empathic Concern .56 .22 6.50 .01
Perspective Taking .03 .24 .02 .89
Attachment .02 .18 .01 .92
Glorification -.28 .21 1.73 .19
Victimhood Centrality -.08 .21 .15 .70
Regional Exclusive VC -.08 .23 .11 .74
Regional Inclusive VC -.10 .22 .23 .64
Event-Specific VC .56 .19 8.83 > .001
Model χ2 45.76
Cox and Snell R2 .27
Nagelkerke R2 .37
Note: Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization, VC = Victim consciousness. Political ideology was assessed using a 7-
point scale (1 = extreme left, 7 = extreme right).
intentions. In Study 2 we found that regional exclusive victim consciousness predicted support for increased border protection and
military presence, and also support for detention and criminalization of refugees. Regional inclusive victim consciousness predicted
positive attitudes toward refugees. In Study 2, the effects of regional victim consciousness were mediated by event-specific inclusive
victim consciousness, which also predicted prosocial behavior towards refugees.
This research extends existing research in several ways, both theoretically and empirically. First, previous research focused on
global or conflict-specific inclusive and exclusive victim consciousness (for reviews see Noor et al., 2012, 2017; Vollhardt, 2012a,
2015). In some contexts, such as in Central Eastern Europe, these particular reference points may be less relevant, but the psycho-
logical symptoms, functions, and consequences of collective victim beliefs are still prevalent from historical experiences of suffering
through occupation, territorial disputes, wars, and totalitarian regimes in the region (see Bar-Tal, Chernyak-Hai, Schori, & Gundar,
2009). We therefore used measures of regional and event-specific victim consciousness, where the reference point for comparison are
other groups in the region, or a specific event of ingroup and outgroup victimization (in this case, the experience of Hungarian
refugees in 1956 and refugees today). Future research should continue to consider the specific context and forms of collective
victimization when choosing constructs and measures that are most suitable for the given context, rather than applying collective
victim beliefs that have been studied in intractable conflicts or the aftermath of genocide to other, distinct experiences of collective
violence and victimization.
In considering the novel measures of victim beliefs that we introduced here, it is interesting to consider why the factor structures
of the regional victim consciousness measure and the event-specific victim consciousness measure differed from each other.
Consistent with previous studies (Cohrs et al., 2015; Vollhardt et al., 2016, 2019), the regional inclusive and exclusive victim
consciousness items clearly loaded on separate factors, while the event-specific inclusive and exclusive victim consciousness items
loaded on one factor, as opposite ends of the same scale. It is possible that the open-ended nature of the regional comparison that did
not specify which group participants were to compare, versus the relatively concrete nature of the event-specific measure that asked
participants about one specific comparison, explains this difference: When responding to the event-specific victim consciousness
items, participants either saw similarities between 1956 and present-day refugees or not. Conversely, for the regional measure it is
easier to have conflicting views about the similarities and differences between the in-group’s and other regional groups’ suffering,
which could entail several comparisons with different groups or different events at different points of time (e.g., the Trianon Treaty
may be seen as unique in the region, while the experience of Stalinist repression could be seen as shared with other countries in the
region). Our findings clearly demonstrate that although the different levels of historical collective victimhood are connected, they are
also distinct: The effects of the more general, regional victim beliefs were mediated by the more concrete, event-specific victim
beliefs. The relatively low correlations between the regional and event-specific victim beliefs and the fact that they load on distinct
factors shows that these are not only theoretically, but empirically distinct collective victim beliefs. This suggests the importance of
assessing several different forms of comparative victim beliefs.
Another strength and contribution of the present studies to the literature is that the findings were for the most part directly and
conceptually replicated across two studies, and extended to include more extreme policies against refugees, as well as behavioral
intentions and actual behaviors in addition to the attitudinal and self-report measures. Moreover, regional and event-specific victim
consciousness predicted attitudes and behaviors towards refugees above and beyond a rigorous set of control variables (political
ideology, national identification, personal centrality of in-group’s victimization, demographics, and trait empathic concern and
perspective taking in Study 2). This allows us to rule out that the present findings merely reflect differences in how much people
identify with their national group, with right-wing political ideologies, and/or their ingroup’s victimization.
108
Limitations of these studies include that they were correlational and cross-sectional, meaning that causal inferences are not
possible. There is experimental evidence that perceptions of past victimization influence cognitions and attitudes toward present-day
events (e.g., Vollhardt, 2013; Warner et al., 2014; Wohl & Branscombe, 2008), but present-day attitudes and the need to legitimize
certain political and social agendas may also drive beliefs about the past (e.g., Rimé et al., 2015). Specifically, participants who
support anti-refugee policies could reject the idea that the past Hungarian refugees and the present-day refugees suffered in similar
ways because of their attitudes toward refugees, and to justify their policy opinions. Furthermore, despite being community samples
and not just student samples, the participants were on average young, well-educated, and mostly from bigger Hungarian cities. Future
research should examine representative samples.
Conclusion
To conclude, beliefs about the in-group’s historical victimization in a different context is related to how group members react to
present-day refugees. This finding is especially important in a context where the country’s political leader actively uses historical
analogies to convey his political messages (Kareem, 2017), and where political leaders, public figures and journalists often use history
in their interpretation of current events (e.g., Bayer, 2018; Janecskó, 2015; Joób, 2016; Kovács, 2016). Debates about similarities and
differences between the historical suffering of Hungarians and the suffering of present-day refugees are ongoing and controversial in
Hungary; and are important for understanding support for anti- and pro-refugee policies in Central and Eastern Europe, a region with
particular importance for the current refugee crises.
Ethics statement
The research was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of Eötvös Loránd University. All participants provided
written informed consent before the study and were debriefed at the end of the research according to the established committee
guidelines. This procedure was also followed in Study 2. The authors declare that research was conducted ethically, results are
reported honestly, the submitted work is original and not (self-) plagiarized, and authorship reflects individuals’ contributions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted within the framework of COST Action IS1205 “Social psychological dynamics of historical re-
presentations in the enlarged European Union.” The first author of the study was funded by the National Research, Development and
Innovation Office (Grant Number: NFKI-K119433).
Appendix A
Complete list of all items used in Studies 1 and 2, translated into Hungarian and back-translated. The Hungarian version of all
items is available from the first author upon request.
Study 1
Regional victim consciousness (Vollhardt et al., 2019)
1 Exclusive victim consciousness
1 The harm Hungarians suffered is unique in Central and Eastern Europe’s history.
2 While other nations in Central and Eastern Europe (have been) harmed in the past and the present, the Hungarian experiences is
overall much more severe.
3 Saying that the other Central and Eastern European nations’ experiences of suffering is similar to the Hungarian’s (experiences) is
just wrong.
4 While all experiences of suffering are somewhat different, the Hungarian experience is truly unique.
5 There is no other nation in East Central Europe which went through the same tribulations as the Hungarians.
6 It is wrong to state that other East Central European nations were hit by / went through the same amount of tribulations as the
Hungarians.
7 No other Central and Eastern European nation has suffered as much as the Hungarian people.
8 There is no suffering in the history of other East Central European nations which is comparable to the Hungarians’ suffering.
109
1 Inclusive victim consciousness
1 Other nations in Central and Eastern Europe have been repressed/oppressed in similar ways as Hungarians.
2 Hungarians have a lot in common with other East Central European ethnic, national or religious groups who are/were kept under
oppression.
3 Generally speaking, there are other nations in the Central and Eastern European regions that have a history of hardship like the
Hungarians.
4 There are other Central and Eastern European nations that suffered as much as the Hungarian people.
5 The degree to which some other Central and Eastern European nations have suffered is comparable to how much the Hungarian
people have suffered.
6 Despite some clear differences, the harm of other Central and Eastern European nations is similar to the Hungarian people’s
experiences.
7 I tend to think or talk about the similarities between the Hungarian experiences of suffering and other Central and Eastern
European nations’ experiences of suffering rather than about the differences.
8 Other East Central European nations have been harmed as much through their history as the Hungarians.
1 Personal centrality of ingroup victimization
1 Knowing about the misdeeds against the Hungarians has influenced my opinions on many social and political issues.
2 It is important to me to remember and pass on stories about the Hungarians’ hardship to next generations.
3 One has to know about our suffering in order to understand us Hungarians.
4 When I think about what it means to be Hungarian, I rarely think about the harms our nations had to suffer / live through.
(reverse-coded)
5 (To me) there are more important cues for defining the Hungarian culture and identity, than the past / historical grievances of our
nation. (reverse-coded)
6 I am not very interested in learning more about the suffering of the Hungarian people. (reverse-coded)
7 Knowing about how Hungarians have suffered has shaped who I am today.
8 It is very important (to me) to know about the historical suffering of the Hungarians.
1 Support for increased border protection and military presence
1 In my opinion, military conscription should be brought back in Hungary.

2 Hungary's borders should be completely closed from refugees.
3 In my opinion, military presence in Hungary needs to be increased.
4 Hungary’s borders need to be protected by weapons.
5 I agree with the necessity of the fence on the borders of Hungary.
1 Support for pro-refugee policies
1 We have to provide financial support for refugees.

2 I support the work of civil society groups helping the refugees.
3 It is our moral obligation to help the refugees.
4 Hungary’s borders should be opened to people in need.
1 Personal involvement in helping the refugees
1 I feel myself personally responsible to help the refugees.

2 I am actively involved in helping refugees.
3 I would not like to be actively involved in helping refugees. (reverse-coded)
National identification (Roccas et al., 2008, adapted to Hungarian by Szabó & László, 2014)
1 Glorification
1 Throughout their history the Hungarian nation has shown singular courage in many cases.
2 Compared to other nations Hungarians are more intelligent.
3 During their history Hungarians were acting more morally than other nations.
4 The world would be a better place if other nations would be like Hungarians.
110
1 Attachment
1 When I am abroad and hear Hungarian words, my heart starts beating faster.
2 Every time I hear the National Anthem I become sentimental.
3 Being Hungarian is an important part of who I am.
4 I feel a strong bond to my country/Hungarians.
Study 2
Regional victim consciousness (shortened version, based on Vollhardt et al., 2018)
1 Exclusive victim consciousness
1 While all experiences of suffering are somewhat different, the Hungarian experience is truly unique.
2 No other Central and Eastern European nation went through similar hardships as the Hungarians.
3 No other Central and Eastern European nation has suffered as much as the Hungarian people.
4 There is no suffering in the history of other Central and Eastern European nations which is comparable to the Hungarians'
suffering.
1 Inclusive victim consciousness
1 Other nations in Central and Eastern Europe have been repressed/oppressed in similar ways as Hungarians.
2 The degree to which some other Central and Eastern European nations have suffered is comparable to how much the Hungarian
people have suffered.
3 Despite some clear differences, the harm of other Central and Eastern European nations is similar to the Hungarian people’s
experiences.
4 During their history, other Central and Eastern European nations have been harmed to the same degree as the Hungarian people.
1 Personal centrality of ingroup victimization
1 It is important to me to remember and pass on stories about the Hungarians’ hardship to next generations.
2 I am not very interested in learning more about the suffering of the Hungarian people. (reverse-coded)
3 Knowing about how Hungarians have suffered has shaped who I am today.
4 It is very important to me to be aware of the historical sufferings of the Hungarians.
1 Event-specific inclusive victim consciousness
1 The refugees have been persecuted in similar ways as the Hungarian refugees who left in 1956.
2 The degree to which the refugees have suffered is comparable to how much the Hungarian refugees in 1956 have suffered.
3 Despite some clear differences, the harm the refugees’ experiences is similar to the Hungarian refugees’ experiences in 1956.
4 The refugees have been harmed to the same degree as the Hungarian refugees in 1956.
5 The hardships Hungarian refugees experienced in 1956 were different / distinct from what refugees today experience. (reverse-
coded)
6 While the refugees (have been) harmed, the Hungarian refugees' experiences in 1956 were overall much more severe. (reverse-
coded)
7 The refugees have not suffered as much as the Hungarian refugees in 1956. (reverse-coded)
8 The refugees' suffering is not comparable to the Hungarian refugees' suffering in 1956. (reverse-coded)
Attitudes toward refugees

Please indicate your overall feeling toward refugees, on a scale ranging from 0 (extremely unfavorable) to 100 (extremely favorable)
1 Support for anti-refugee policies

Support for increased border protection and military presence (see Study 1)
Support for detention and criminalization of refugees
1 Refugees should be kept in places which are surrounded by barbed wire fences.
2 Refugees should be punished harshly if they enter to Hungary through the border fence.
3 I agree with the new 'push back law' which enables police to apprehend and push back any foreign national who entered the
country irregularly and were within 5 miles of the state border.
4 Refugees should be sent back to their countries of origin, regardless of what they say about their situation there.
5 Refugees should be kept in closed centers.
111
6 Climbing the border fence (or damaging it) should trigger criminal charges.
7 Refugees who are waiting for a legal decision about their asylum application should not be allowed to move freely in Hungary.
8 Juvenile refugees should not get special treatment.
1 Personal involvement in helping the refugees (see Study 1)
1 I would like to be actively involved in helping refugees.

2 I am actively involved in helping refugees.
3 I feel personally responsible to help the refugees.
Prosocial behavior towards refugees

You can take part in a lottery, and win 10.000 HUF (∼€ 31). However, considering the subject of our research, we would like to
offer an alternative opportunity: If you win the lottery, you can give your entire prize or part of your winnings to the Migrant
Solidarity Group (MigSzol) that helps the refugees.
Would you like to offer part / all of your money to MigSzol (Migrant Solidarity Group of Hungary) if you win the lottery?
If yes, how much would you offer?
1 National identification (see Study 1)

Trait empathic concern (Davis, 1983)
1 When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.
2 Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal. (reverse-coded)
3 When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them. (reverse-coded)
4 I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.
Perspective taking (Davis, 1983)
1 I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the other person’s point of view. (reverse-coded)
2 I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.
3 If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments. (reverse-coded)
4 I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.
5 When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in their shoes” for a while.
References
Balogh, S. E. (2017). Hungarian refugees of 1956 and the current refugee crisis. November 4 Retrieved August 23, 2018 fromHungarian Spectrumhttp://
hungarianspectrum.org/2017/11/04/hungarian-refugees-of-1956-and-the-current-refugee-crisis/.
Barteczko, A., & Sobczak, P. (2017). Poland did not invite refugees, has right to say ‘no’: Kaczynski. Retrieved August 23, 2019 fromReutershttps://www.reuters.com/
article/us-poland-migrants/poland-did-not-invite-refugees-has-right-to-say-no-kaczynski-idUSKBN19M3H8.
Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A. (2009). A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts. International Review of the Red
Cross, 91(874), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109990221.
Batson, C., & Oleson, K. (1991). Current status of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In M. S. Clark (Ed.). Prosocial behavior (pp. 62–85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bayer, Z. S. (2018). Bűn és bűnhődés [Sin and punishment] Magyar Idők. June 12 Retrieved August 28, 2018 fromhttps://magyaridok.hu/velemeny/bun-es-bunhodes-
3184597/.
Bibó, I. (1946). A kelet-európai kisállamok nyomorúsága [The misery of small Eastern European states]. Budapest, Hungary: Új Magyarország.
Bideleux, R., & Jeffries, I. (2007). The Balkans: A post-communist history. London, U.K: Routledge.
Bilali, R., & Ross, M. A. (2012). Remembering intergroup conflict. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 123–135). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bruneau, E., Kteily, N., & Laustsen, L. (2018). The unique effects of blatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards Muslim refugees during the European
‘refugee crisis’ across four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2357.
Cartledge, B. (2011). The will to survive: A history of Hungary. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Cohrs, C. J., McNeill, A., & Vollhardt, J. R. (2015). The two-sided role of inclusive victimhood for intergroup reconciliation: Evidence from Northern Ireland. Peace and
Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(4), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000141.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical
Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1),
113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.
Dunai, M. (2016). Once asylum beneficiaries in 1956, Hungarians now reject migrants. October 21 Retrieved August 24, 2018, from:Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/
article/us-europe-migrants-hungary-idUSKCN12L0T4?il%3D0.
Doliński, D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i2.25025 Article e25025.
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2008). Perspective-taking: misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.). Handbook of imagination and
mental simulation (pp. 297–311). New York: Psychology Press.
Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., & Gaucher, D. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating
refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028.
Eurostat (2016). Asylum in the EU Member States Record number of over 1.2 million first time asylum seekers registered in 2015 Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis: Top citizenships.
March 4 Eurostat news release 44/2016, Retrieved August 23, 2018, fromhttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/
790eba01-381c-4163-bcd2-a54959b99ed6.
112
Eurostat (2019). Wages and labour costs. April Retrieved 17 September, 2019, fromhttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Wages_and_labour_
costs#Labour_costs.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). ). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior
Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Fülöp, É., Csertő, I., Ilg, B., Szabó, Z., Slugoski, B., & László, J. (2014). Emotional elaboration of collective traumas in historical narratives. In J. P. Forgas, O. Vincze, &
J. László (Eds.). Social cognition and communication. Sydney symposium in social psychology series (pp. 245–262). London, U.K: Routledge.
Fülöp, É., & László, J. (2013). Emotional processes in elaborating a historical trauma in the daily press. In R. Cabecinhas, & L. Abadia (Eds.). Narratives and social
memory: Theoretical and methodological approaches (pp. 46–60). Braga, Portugal: University of Minho.
Ghilani, D., Luminet, O., Erb, H.-P., Flassbeck, C., Rosoux, V., Tames, I., et al. (2017). Looking forward to the past: An interdisciplinary discussion on the use of
historical analogies and their effects. Memory Studies, 10(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017701609.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65(6), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105.
Hajnal, G. (2015). What are the main differences between the’ 56 Hungarian and the current refugee crises? September 18 Retrieved August 27, 2018 fromDailynews
Hungaryhttps://dailynewshungary.com/what-are-the-main-differences-between-the-56-hungarian-and-the-current-refugee-crises/.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y: Guilford Press.
Hirschberger, G., Kende, A., & Weinstein, S. (2016). Defensive representations of an uncomfortable history: The case of Hungary and the Holocaust. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 55, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.08.006.
Hungarytoday (2016). Hungarians show solidarity with refugees but reject economic migrants, survey reveals. July 13 Retrieved August 23, 2018 fromhttps://hungarytoday.
hu/hungarians-show-solidarity-refugees-reject-economic-migrants-survey-reveals-35310/.
Janecskó, K. (2015). Magyarország megvédi magát [Hungary defends itself]. October 23 Retrieved August 27, 2018 fromIndex.huhttps://index.hu/belfold/2015/10/23/
oktober_23_fidesz_rendezvenyen_varga_mihaly_beszelt/.
Joób (2016). Ha az érvek még számítanak, fussa át ezt a népszavazás előtt [If rational arguments matter, please read this before the referendum]. October 1 Retrieved
September 17, 2019 fromIndex.huhttps://index.hu/belfold/2016/10/01/hazugsagvizsgalo_kvotanepszavazas_menekultek_menekultvalsag_kampany/.
Kallius, A., Monterescu, D., & Rajaram, P. K. (2016). Immobilizing mobility: Border ethnography, illiberal democracy, and the politics of the “refugee crisis” in
Hungary. American Ethnologist, 43(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12260.
Kareem, I. (2017). Viktor Orbán’s use of history in the European refugee crisis. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Retrieved fromLund University Librarieshttp://lup.lub.lu.se/
student-papers/record/8926115.
Kende, A., Hadarics, M., & Szabó, Z. S. (2018). Inglorious glorification and attachment: National and European identities as predictors of anti- and pro-immigrant attitudes.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kende, A., Lantos, N. A., Belinszky, A., Csaba, S., & Lukács, Z. A. (2017). The politicized motivations of volunteers in the refugee crisis: Intergroup helping as the means
to achieve social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.642.
Kende, A. K., Lantos, N. A., & Krekó, P. (2018). Endorsing a civic (vs an ethnic) definition of citizenship predicts higher pro-minority and lower pro-majority collective
action intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01402.
Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., & Klar, Y. (2013). The “never again” state of Israel: The emergence of the Holocaust as a core feature of Israeli identity and its four
incongruent voices. The Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12007.
Kovács, Z. (2016). No, the Hungarian refugees of 1956 are not the same as today’s migrants. October 11 Retrieved August 27, 2018 fromAbout Hungaryhttp://
abouthungary.hu/blog/no-the-hungarian-refugees-of-1956-are-not-the-same-as-todays-migrants/.
László, J. (2013). Historical tales and national identity: An introduction to narrative social psychology. London, U.K: Routledge.
Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. The British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X27162.
Louis, W. R., Esses, V. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (2013). National identification, perceived threat, and dehumanization as antecedents of negative attitudes toward
immigrants in Australia and Canada. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), E156–E165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12044.
Manevich, D. (2016). Hungarians share Europe’s embrace of democratic principles but are less tolerant of refugees, minorities. September 30 Retrieved August 24, 2018
fromPew Research Centerhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/30/hungarians-share-europes-embrace-of-democratic-principles-but-are-less-tolerant-
of-refugees-minorities/.
McLaughlin, D. (2016). Hungary’s ‘56ers’ split over handling of refugee crisis. October 22 Retrieved August 24, 2018 fromThe Irish Timeshttps://www.irishtimes.com/
news/world/europe/hungary-s-56ers-split-over-handling-of-refugee-crisis-1.2838388.
Mink, A. (2017). Menekültek 1956-ban és ma [Refugees in 1956 and today]. July 21 Retrieved 26 August, 2017 fromHVG.huhttp://hvg.hu/itthon/20170721_Mink_
Andras_Menekultek_beilleszkedes_1956_Surjan_Laszlo.
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in
violent conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440048.
Noor, M., Vollhardt, J. R., Mari, S., & Nadler, A. (2017). The social psychology of collective victimhood. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 121–134. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2300.
Olick, J. K. (1999). Collective memory: The two cultures. Sociological Theory, 17(3), 333–348.
Reijerse, A., Van Acker, K., Vanbeselaere, N., Phalet, K., & Duriez, B. (2013). Beyond the ethnic‐civic dichotomy: Cultural citizenship as a new way of excluding
immigrants. Political Psychology, 34(4), 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00920.x.
Rimé, B., Bouchat, P., Klein, O., & Licata, L. (2015). When collective memories of victimhood fade: Generational evolution of intergroup attitudes and political
aspirations in Belgium. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(4), 515–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2104.
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral
violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319225.
Romsics, I. (1999). Hungary in the twentieth century. Budapest, Hungary: Osiris.
Schönbrodt, F., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.
2013.05.009.
Schori-Eyal, N., Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2014). Three layers of collective victimhood: Effects of multileveled victimhood on intergroup conflicts in the Israeli-Arab
context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(12), 778–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12268.
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Noor, M. (2013). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through re-categorization into a common victim or
perpetrator identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.007.
Smeekes, A., Van Acker, K., Verkuyten, M., & Vanbeselaere, N. (2014). The legacy of Nazism: Historical analogies and support for the far right. Social Influence, 9(4),
300–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2013.855141.
Stumpf, A. (2016). Párhuzamot vont az’ 56-os és a mai menekültek között az amerikai nagykövet [US Ambassador drew a parallel between the refugees of 1956 and today’s
refugees]. October 7 Retrieved June 25, 2017 fromMandinerhttp://mandiner.hu/cikk/20161007_colleen_bell_tudositas_56_menekultek.
Surján, L. (2017). Felelet Timmermans biztos úrnak [Response to European Commission First Vice-President Timmermans]. July 9 Retrieved July 20, 2017 fromMagyar
Időkhttp://magyaridok.hu/velemeny/felelet-timmermans-biztos-urnak-1921621/.
Surk, B., & Castle, S. (2015). Hungary closes border, changing refugees’ path. October 17 Retrieved August 23, 2018 fromThe New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/
2015/10/18/world/europe/hungary-closes-border-changing-refugees-path.html.
Szabó, Z. P., & László, J. (2014). A nemzettel való azonosulás magyar kérdőíve [Identification with the national in-group: A Hungarian questionnaire]. Magyar
Pszichológiai Szemle, 69(2), 293–318.
113
Tóth, J., & Kilic, T. (2017). Civil policy on migration (CEVIPOL project). Country analysis of Hungary (2017). Retrieved from:Visegrad Fundhttp://kki.hu/assets/upload/
Country_Analysis_-_Hungary_IFAT.pdf.
Vargha, D. (2015). Budapest’s Eastern train station: From the past to today’s (child) refugee crisis. October 12 Retrieved September 17, 2019 fromThe Reluctant
Internationalistshttp://www.bbk.ac.uk/reluctantinternationalists/blog/budapests-eastern-train-station-from-the-past-to-todays-child-refugee-crisis/.
Verkuyten, M. (2018). The benefits of studying immigration for social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.2354.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2012a). Collective victimization. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 136–157). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2012b). Interpreting rights and duties after mass violence. Culture & Psychology, 18(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X11427467.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2013). “Crime against humanity” or “crime against Jews”? Acknowledgment in construals of the Holocaust and its importance for intergroup
relations. The Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12008.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2015). Inclusive victim consciousness in advocacy, social movements, and intergroup relations: Promises and pitfalls. Social Issues and Policy Review,
9(1), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12011.
Vollhardt, J. R., & Bilali, R. (2015). The role of inclusive and exclusive victim consciousness in predicting intergroup attitudes: Findings from Rwanda, Burundi, and
DRC. Political Psychology, 36(5), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12174.
Vollhardt, J. R., & Nair, R. (2018). The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four
diaspora groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2341.
Vollhardt, J. R., Nair, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2016). Inclusive victim consciousness predicts minority group members’ support for refugees and immigrants. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 46, 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12368.
Vollhardt, J. R., Twali, M. S., Szabó, Z. P., Cohrs, J. C., McNeill, A., Hadjiandreou, E., et al. (2018). The role of group-based comparative victim beliefs in predicting support
for hostile versus prosocial intergroup outcomes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Warner, R. H., Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2014). When do victim group members feel a moral obligation to help suffering others? European Journal of Social
Psychology, 44(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2010.
Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans fear wave of refugees will mean more terrorism, fewer jobsJuly 11 Retrieved from. Pew Research Centerhttp://www.
pewglobal.org/files/2016/07/Pew-Research-Center-EU-Refugees-and-National-Identity-Report-FINAL-July-11-2016.pdf.
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(6), 988–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.988.
Yitmen, Ş., & Verkuyten, M. (2018). Feelings toward refugees and non-Muslims in Turkey: The roles of national and religious identifications, and multiculturalism.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12493.
114

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94-114

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94-114

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (2020) 94–114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Through the lens of history: The eﬀects of beliefs about historical

Social psychological predictors of attitudes towards refugees

Collective victim beliefs

Eﬀects of collective victim beliefs on intergroup relations

Event-speciﬁc victim beliefs and historical analogies

The hungarian context

Hypotheses and overview of studies

β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

Note. Victimhood centrality = Personal centrality of ingroup victimization, VC = Victim consciousness.

Binary logistic regression: prosocial behavior (donations) toward refugees

Variable β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

DV 2: Support for Detention and Criminalization of Refugees

Variable β SE β 95% CI p β SE β 95% CI p

Variable β SE β 95% CI P β SE β 95% CI p

Variable β SE β 95% CI P β SE β 95% CI p

Age .01 .02 .17 .68

Declaration of Competing Interest

Regional victim consciousness (Vollhardt et al., 2019)

1 Exclusive victim consciousness

1 Inclusive victim consciousness

1 Personal centrality of ingroup victimization

1 Support for increased border protection and military presence

1 In my opinion, military conscription should be brought back in Hungary.

1 Support for pro-refugee policies

1 We have to provide ﬁnancial support for refugees.

1 Personal involvement in helping the refugees

1 I feel myself personally responsible to help the refugees.

Regional victim consciousness (shortened version, based on Vollhardt et al., 2018)

1 Exclusive victim consciousness

1 Inclusive victim consciousness

1 Personal centrality of ingroup victimization

1 Event-speciﬁc inclusive victim consciousness

Attitudes toward refugees

1 Support for anti-refugee policies

1 Personal involvement in helping the refugees (see Study 1)

1 I would like to be actively involved in helping refugees.

Prosocial behavior towards refugees

1 National identiﬁcation (see Study 1)

Perspective taking (Davis, 1983)

You might also like