New publication in Political Psychology

The article "Guilt, shame, and antiwar action in an authoritarian country at war" is out in the February issue of Political Psychology. We surveyed ~1000 Russian citizens about their emotions and views on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and found that moral shame was a more powerful predictor of anti-war action than many other established predictors, such as anger or attitudes towards the war. 

The paper is published open-access and available on the journal's website and through the University of York research database.

Abstract 

Feeling guilt and shame for the harm done to others by the ingroup can facilitate intergroup reconciliation. Most of the studies showing this effect are conducted in democratic countries and on historical, not current, conflicts. We investigated the role of group-based guilt and shame in collective action in an authoritarian country at war. We asked more than 1000 Russians living in Russia, in a sample representative of the country's population by gender and age, about their experiences of group-based guilt and shame regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine and their past and future antiwar political actions. We tested whether political efficacy is necessary for experiencing group-based guilt and shame, and whether these emotions are predictive of antiwar action over and above other emotions and attitudes. Democratic values, not political efficacy, were the most robust predictor of group-based guilt and shame. Only moral shame, but not image shame or guilt, predicted past and future antiwar action. Whereas attitude towards the war and moral shame predicted engagement in antiwar action (vs none), other negative dominant emotions like anger predicted the degree of this engagement. We highlight the gaps in the study of collective action and the need for more evidence from nondemocratic contexts.