In the last issue of Invested, I explored the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, or what happens when our beliefs are challenged by facts and why we often resist revising them. This month, I wanted to take a deeper look at one particular dimension of this phenomenon, which is what happens when the dissonance is not merely personal, but collective.
What happens when the stories we tell ourselves, about who we are as a nation, a culture, or a people, collide with a truth that doesn’t match our own version? What if that truth includes historical wrongdoing? From the ruins of post-WWII Europe to modern-day conversations about colonialism and race, societies across the world have confronted, or in some cases avoided, devastating contradictions between their values and historical actions. And as we will see, these reckonings are not only political, they are also deeply psychological.
At the heart of these responses lies the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. As psychologist Leon Festinger (1956) noted, when confronted with facts that challenge deeply held beliefs, people tend to resolve the resulting tension not by changing their views, but by rationalizing, denying, or reframing the evidence to protect their identity.
But what happens when that identity is shared, when entire communities, cultures, or nations are implicated?
Here, Dr. Nyla R. Branscombe’s research on collective guilt offers a valuable framework. She distinguishes between healthy guilt, which acknowledges wrongdoing while sustaining group identification and motivating constructive action, and toxic guilt, which leads to shame, denial, or disengagement. Understanding this difference is key to interpreting why some societies move toward moral accountability, while others deflect or resist it.
Germany & Japan: Divergent Paths After WWII
In last month’s article, I briefly referenced Germany and Japan as illustrative cases of national-level cognitive dissonance. Revisiting them now through Branscombe’s lens of collective guilt allows us to understand how differing psychological and political responses can shape historical memory and moral responsibility.
In the aftermath of World War II, both nations were confronted with the atrocities committed under their respective regimes. However, their responses diverged sharply.
Germany exposed the full extent of the Holocaust and held those responsible accountable through the Nuremberg Trials. War crimes trials, reparations to Holocaust survivors, and curriculum reforms helped establish a narrative of accountability. Public memorials such as Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe and institutions like the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future serve as national acts of remembrance and moral instruction (Buruma, 1995). Additionally, Chancellor Willy Brandt’s symbolic gesture of kneeling at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Memorial in 1970 further exemplified the commitment to moral reckoning. These examples reflect Branscombe’s concept of healthy collective guilt, where national identity is maintained even as moral failure is acknowledged. As historian Tony Judt noted, Germany rejoined the global community “not in spite of the past, but in large measure because of the way it has dealt with it” (Judt, 2005).
Japan, by contrast, followed a different path after WWII. The country’s national identity came under attack when Emperor Hirohito’s postwar renunciation of divinity disrupted a core nationalist mythology. Unable to withstand further reckoning, Japan’s official narratives frequently downplayed its wartime atrocities. Events such as the Nanjing Massacre, the abuses of Unit 731, and the forced sexual slavery of the so-called “comfort women” were often omitted from history textbooks or softened in public discourse. Although Japan issued a formal apology through the 1993 Kono Statement and later reached a 2015 agreement with South Korea regarding the comfort women, critics argue that these gestures have been inconsistent and undermined by nationalist rhetoric (Soh, 2008).
This avoidance has strained international relations, particularly with China and South Korea, and has shaped a national psyche that some scholars describe as possessing a “culture of victimhood,” one that emphasizes Japan’s suffering in the atomic bombings more than its role as aggressor (Buruma, 1995). Branscombe’s framework would characterize this response as toxic collective guilt, where the dissonance of national wrongdoing leads to defensiveness and disengagement, rather than reconciliation.
Settler Colonialism & “White Fatigue” in Canada
Closer to home, Canada continues to grapple with its own historical injustices, particularly the legacy of residential schools and settler colonialism. Increasingly, non-Indigenous Canadians are recognizing the immense harm inflicted through cultural erasure, forced family separations, and institutional abuse. For some, this awareness prompts humility and a willingness to engage in reconciliation. For others, however, the response is one of discomfort or resistance where a defensive mechanism is employed through which individuals disassociate from group wrongdoing to avoid moral discomfort (Branscombe & Doosje, 2004).
This resistance is often accompanied by “white fatigue,” a state of emotional exhaustion or disengagement that arises when members of dominant groups are asked to sustain involvement in justice and equity work. It can manifest as superficial allyship, backlash against equity initiatives, or minimization of systemic harm, despite a stated opposition to racism itself (Branscombe & Baron, 2017).
Between Denial & Redemption
As Festinger (1956) argued, when confronted with unsettling truths, both individuals and societies strive to reduce dissonance. But whereas individuals are limited to internal strategies like reinterpretation or rationalization, nations have more expansive tools such as education, censorship, political narrative, and silence. This makes historical reckoning not only personal but profoundly structural, and a collective act of moral courage.
Japan’s reluctance to fully acknowledge its wartime past continues to hinder reconciliation efforts and shape both regional diplomacy and national identity. Meanwhile, Germany’s sustained, though contested, commitment to accountability has helped rebuild its legitimacy on the world stage.
Canada now stands at a critical juncture. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission marked a significant step toward acknowledging historical harm. Yet, the vast majority of its 94 Calls to Action remain unfulfilled (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). If Canada is to move from recognition to repair, expressions of remorse must be matched by sustained action. As Branscombe’s framework suggests, symbolic gestures alone do not constitute healthy collective guilt, transformation requires accountability, commitment, and follow-through.
Theories of collective guilt and cognitive dissonance help to reveal why historical reckoning is both difficult and essential. At a time marked by polarization, disinformation, and cultural backlash, we need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be.
Supporting individual and national mental health requires more than clinical care; it requires cultural literacy, historical awareness, and for psychological resilience to be present and accessible when hard truths emerge.
Bibliography
Branscombe, N. R., & Baron, R. A. (2017). Social psychology (14th ed.). Pearson. Social psychology (14th ed.). Pearson.
Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2004). Collective Guilt: International Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Buruma, I. (1995). The Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. University of Minnesota Press.
Judt, T. (2005). Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin Books.
Soh, C. S. (2008). The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Calls to Action.