What's in a name? Psychological implications of the 'genocide' label

The present research examines the implications of the “genocide” label in historical representations for national identity, collective memory and reparative action. Study 1 exposed European American participants to different representations of the colonial encounter which construed historical violence as either “societal change” or “genocide”. Results revealed that perception of harm and support for reparative action (indirectly via perception of harm) were greater among participants exposed to the “genocide” than “societal change” representation, even in a context (i.e. identity salience) that otherwise promotes denial of harm and opposition to reparative action. Moreover, participants in an identity salience condition or who scored high on national glorification tended to silence critical commemoration, despite the otherwise facilitating effect of the genocide representation. Study 2 exposed Costa Rican participants to different representations that construed the colonial encounter as either “societal change” or “genocide”. Results revealed that the “genocide” representation led to a decrease in the centrality of Costa Rican identity, which in turn reduced support for Indigenous rights policy. Study 3 exposed European American participants to representations of either own-group or other-group wrongdoing which construed historical violence as either “calamity” or “genocide”. Participants exposed to the “genocide” representation perceived historical violence as more relevant to present day reality, and reported somewhat greater support for reparative action, but only when the label referred to other group’s wrongdoing. When “genocide” referred to own group’s wrongdoing, participants perceived historical violence as less atrocious and reported less support for reparative action. Discussion focuses on the implications of the “genocide” label for national identity, collective memory and reparative action.