Search for: All records

ABSTRACT To what extent are preferences for individual versus collective rights shaped by historical experiences, particularly colonialism? To answer this question, we conducted field studies in Fiji, a former British colony, home to two populations with distinct histories of colonial subjugation. We reasoned that for Indigenous iTaukei, for whom collective rights were stripped, prioritizing group rights on issues tied to colonial harm would be seen as essential for cultural survival. Contrastingly, we reasoned that Indo‐Fijians (descendants of indentured laborers brought to Fiji under colonial rule) would prefer equal rights for all. In Study 1, we assessed attitudes toward equality across various social and political issues, finding that iTaukei were less likely to endorse equality, particularly concerning land ownership. Study 2 explored iTaukei perceptions of land rights, revealing that they view granting Indo‐Fijians land access as a threat to their identity and survival. Study 3 explored support for democratic norms, themselves an artifact of Western legal thinking imposed upon Fiji. While support for democratic norms was high in abstract, members of both groups were more supportive of democratic violations when such violations served their group's interests. Findings highlight the lasting psychological impact of colonialism, demonstrating how historical grievances shape reasoning about rights and governance in postcolonial societies. Understanding these dynamics provides insight into contemporary intergroup conflict and the tension between universal democratic principles and Indigenous collective rights. This work contributes to broader discussions on decolonization and underscores the need for culturally sensitive approaches to human rights discourse.