We propose that historical myths fall into two distinctive categories: Traumatic and cooperative. Traumatic myths, highlighting collective suffering, can undermine trust and foster conspiracy theories, whereas cooperative myths, emphasizing collective action, enhance group cohesion and within-group coalition building. Psychological and sociological evidence supports these divergent impacts of historical myths both in nations and social movements.

We propose that the metaphor of cleansing was a by-product of modernization processes. Based on cultural and historical evidence, we claim that the activation of cleansing metaphor triggered positive associations in times when separation was a positively regarded element of human culture and agriculture, but it should not exert the same effect in times when separation became culturally anachronistic.

The problem of extended fusion and identification can be approached from a diachronic perspective. Based on our own research, as well as findings from the fields of social, political, and clinical psychology, we argue that the way contemporary emotional events shape local fusion is similar to the way in which historical experiences shape extended fusion. We propose a reciprocal process in which historical events shape contemporary identities, whereas contemporary identities shape interpretations of past traumas.

Analyzing the contempt as an intergroup emotion, we suggest that contempt and anger are not built upon each other, whereas disgust seems to be the most elementary and specific basic-emotional antecedent of contempt. Concurring with Gervais & Fessler, we suggest that many instances of “hate speech” are in fact instances of “contempt speech” – being based on disgust-driven contempt rather than hate.

Based on our comparison of political orientation and research interests of social psychologists in capitalist Western countries versus post-Communist Eastern European countries, we suggest that Duarte and colleagues' claim of liberal bias in the field seems American-centric. We propose an alternative account of political biases which focuses on the academic tendency to explain attitudes of lower status groups.

Dixon et al. accurately describe subtle mechanisms of discrimination that inhibit minorities' collective action in modern democratic societies. This commentary suggests that in contemporary non-Western societies, where ethnic conflicts are more violent, traditional overt forms of prejudice still exist and predict discrimination of ethnic and racial minorities. Thus, prejudice reduction models should and do improve intergroup relations in such contexts.