A major barrier to the resolution of intergroup conflicts is the reluctance to acknowledge transgressions committed by one's ingroup toward the outgroup. Existing research demonstrates that individuals are generally motivated to justify ingroup conduct and avoid experiencing guilt and shame about ingroup harmdoing. The current work explores the use of an analogy-based intervention to attenuate motivated reasoning in evaluations of ingroup harmdoing. Overall, across six studies, we find support for our hypothesis that considering a case of harmdoing in a removed context increases acknowledgment of an analogous case of ingroup harmdoing. We further explore why, and under what conditions, the analogy is effective in leading to increased acknowledgment of an ingroup transgression. We find that the effect of the analogy is mediated by the endorsement of moral principles specific to the domain of the transgression, suggesting that the mechanism involves a cognitive process of analogical reasoning.
Keywords: acknowledgment of ingroup harmdoing; analogy; intergroup conflict; moral judgment; psychological intervention.