British Journal of Social Psychology (2019), 58, 452–472 © 2018 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups Rotem Kahalon 1 * , Nurit Shnabel 1 , Samer Halabi 2 and Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli 3 1 The School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Israel 2 Tel Aviv Yaffo Academic College, Israel 3 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel Competitive victimhood denotes group members’ efforts to establish that their ingroup has suffered greater injustice than an adversarial outgroup. Previous research in contexts of structural inequality has stressed the role of the need to defend the ingroup’s moral identity, rather than the need for power, in leading advantaged and disadvantaged group members to engage in competitive victimhood. Focusing on the structural inequality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (Study 1) and Israeli women and men (Study 2), we found that across all groups and contexts, power needs predicted competitive victimhood. Also, the need to protect the ingroup’s moral reputation (i.e., defensive moral needs) positively predicted competitive victimhood, whereas among advantaged group members, the need to protect the ingroup’s moral essence negatively predicted competitive victimhood. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that competitive victim- hood correlated, positively for advantaged and negatively for disadvantaged group members, with support for policies securing realistic and symbolic resources for the disadvantaged group. Theoretical and practical implications of these results, which are consistent with the logic of the needs-based model of reconciliation, are discussed. Over the past several decades, there has been a historical shift in the nature of majority– minority relationships in Western societies: from political, antagonistic relationships, in which the structurally disadvantaged minority 1 is viewed as deviant, to ethical relationships, in which the structurally advantaged majority recognizes minority members’ inalienable rights for liberty and equality and assumes moral responsibility to protect them (Moscovici & P erez, 2009). This shift has led to ‘the emergence of minorities as victims alongside the formerly predominant active, militant minorities’ (Moscovici & P erez, 2007, p. 725). Whereas ‘old school’ active minorities demanded mobilization and power, ‘contemporary’ victimized minorities demand recognition of their suffering. Receiving such recognition is meaningful in the context of an ethical relationship, in *Correspondence should be addressed to Rotem Kahalon, The School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel (email: rotemkah@mail.tau.ac.il). 1 For the sake of conceptual simplicity, we use the terms ‘structurally disadvantaged groups’ and ‘minority groups’ interchangeably. Similarly, we treat the terms ‘structurally advantaged groups’ and ‘majority groups’ as synonyms. We acknowledge, however, that in some social contexts, the minority may be advantaged and the majority disadvantaged; see Seyranian, Atuel, and Crano’s (2008) distinction between ‘elites’ and ‘subjugated minorities’ and between ‘moral majorities’ and ‘powerless populace’. DOI:10.1111/bjso.12276 452