Different collective memories of Japanese colonization in Korea: Consequences for distinct preferences for strategies to deal with the past Hu Y. Jeong, and Johanna Ray Vollhardt Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA Although many Koreans’ attitudes towards Japan are marked by hostility and distrust due to the memories of Japanese colonization, others have different views on the past and different preferences for dealing with Japan. The current study examines the links between different construals of historical victimization (i.e., collective victim beliefs) and distinct intergroup strategies: collective action demanding apology and reparation from Japan, reconciliation, and retribution. A survey among 249 South Koreans identified four collective victim beliefs: preserving memories and supporting survivors, ingroup fragmentation about how to address the past, grievances concerning historical suffering and perpetrators’ denial, and perceived prevalence of ingroup resistance. Grievances concerning historical suffering and present-day denial predicted increased willingness to participate in collective action, desire for retribution, and decreased willingness for reconciliation. Perceived importance of preserving memories and supporting survivors predicted greater willingness to participate in collective action and more desire for retribution. Unexpectedly, perceived ingroup fragmentation and resistance also predicted willingness for reconciliation. Most of the effects of collective victim beliefs on intergroup strategies were mediated by resentment towards the Japanese. Overall, this study expands the literature on collective victimhood in the understudied context of Koreans’ collective memories of colonization. Keywords: collective action, collective memories, collective victim beliefs, Japan, Korea, reconciliation, resentment, retribution. Introduction The Japanese colonial rule over the Korean peninsula left collective memories of forced labour, sexual slavery (euphemistically referred to as “Comfort Women”) oper- ated by the Imperial Japanese Army, and other forms of violence in modern Koreans’ psyche. These memories of colonial violence persist in Koreans’ present-day collective narratives, often feeding into hostility and distrust toward Japan (Kim, Kang, Lee, & Friedhoff, 2014). This animosity resulted in conflicts such as the territorial dispute over the Liancourt Rocks (called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan). However, there also have been dis- agreements over how to deal with Japan. For example, while many South Koreans protested and boycotted Japanese products during the recent trade dispute that was sparked by the South Korean Supreme Court’s decision to order Japanese companies to pay reparations for forced labour during World War II, others appealed for more rec- onciliatory attitudes, arguing that this issue had already been settled with Japan (Do, 2019). Such contrasting views suggest that people make sense of their ingroup’s historical victimization in different ways. Understanding these dis- tinct interpretations may help explain different strategies ingroup members prefer for dealing with historical victim- ization and with the perpetrator group. Social representations of history, including collective memories of violence, are crucial in forming a group’s identity and norms and guiding interactions with other groups (Liu & Hilton, 2005). While collective victim beliefs—that is, how people construe their ingroup’s vic- timization (Vollhardt, 2012)—are often shared and shaped by societal discourse (Bar-Tal, 2000), these social representations can also be heterogeneous and contentious (Liu, Lawrence, Ward, & Abraham, 2002; Moscovici, 1988). Different ways of appraising collec- tive victimization should be linked to different coping strategies (Leach, 2020). For example, depending on how this past is remembered, people may or may not resent the perpetrator group, favour reconciliation, or demand justice through collective action. However, the existing literature has focused on limited sets of collective victim beliefs and outcomes. Correspondence: Hu Y. Jeong, Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, 01610, USA. E-mail: huJeong@clarku.edu Received 6 February 2020; revision 3 November 2020; accepted 4 November 2020. © 2020 Asian Association of Social Psychology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2021), 24, 392–404 DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12449 Asian Journal of Social Psychology