Expectations Among Aboriginal Peoples in Canada Regarding the Potential Impacts of a Government Apology

After continued pressure, the Canadian government offered an apology to Aboriginal peoples for its role in the Indian Residential School (IRS) system, where children were removed from their families in an effort to assimilate the Aboriginal population. Although the apology was sought after, it was unclear what Aboriginal peoples expected it to accomplish in relation to their treatment and quality of life within Canada. Quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that, although Aboriginal adults (N = 164) felt the apology could potentially be a first step towards improved relations with the government and non‐Aboriginal Canadians, expectations that such changes would actually come to fruition were generally pessimistic. In exploring predictors of such expectations, path analysis indicated that those who had been intimately impacted by IRSs reported greater perceived discrimination that, in turn, was associated with lowered intergroup trust and forgiveness. Those who perceived high levels of discrimination were less likely to expect changes following the apology, which was mediated by the low levels of intergroup trust and forgiveness towards the government, but not towards non‐Aboriginal Canadians. Essentially, an apology was not enough to elicit hope for improved intergroup relations, especially when perceptions of continued discrimination impeded the restoration of intergroup trust and forgiveness.     

Allowing the victim to draw a line in history: Intergroup apology effectiveness as a function of collective autonomy support

We tested whether intergroup apology effectiveness increases when the apology is collective autonomy supportive (i.e., victimized group members are told they have the choice to accept or reject the apology). In Experiment 1, university students who received a collective autonomy supportive (compared to a collective autonomy unsupportive or basic) apology for derogatory remarks made by a rival university perceived the apology as more empathic. This, in turn, heightened intergroup forgiveness. Experiment 2 replicated and extended this effect in the context of the friendly fire killing of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan by the United States. Canadians in the collective autonomy supportive condition felt more empowered and were less critical of the apology. Sequential mediation analyses revealed that collective autonomy support had an indirect effect on intergroup forgiveness through empowerment and empathic support of the apology. Findings suggest the apology–forgiveness link strengthens when the victimized group's collective autonomy is explicitly acknowledged.     

Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness

The authors examined how categorization influences victimized group members' responses to contemporary members of a historical perpetrator group. Specifically, the authors tested whether increasing category inclusiveness--from the intergroup level to the maximally inclusive human level--leads to greater forgiveness of a historical perpetrator group and decreased collective guilt assignment for its harmdoing. Among Jewish North Americans (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and Native Canadians (Experiment 3) human-level categorization resulted in more positive responses toward Germans and White Canadians, respectively, by decreasing the uniqueness of their past harmful actions toward the in-group. Increasing the inclusiveness of categorization led to greater forgiveness and lessened expectations that former out-group members should experience collective guilt compared with when categorization was at the intergroup level. Discussion focuses on obstacles that are likely to be encountered on the road to reconciliation between groups that have a history of conflictual relations.     

A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness

Political apologies by one group to another often occur a significant period of time after the original transgression. What effect does such a delay have on perceptions of sincerity and forgiveness? A delayed apology could reflect the offender group's reluctance to apologize, or, alternatively, it could represent time and consideration spent on developing an appropriate response. In the latter case, the delayed apology would represent a sincere acknowledgment of the harm done, whereas in the former case it would not. In two studies, we found that a verbal collective apology, when delayed, was perceived to be less sincere than when offered more immediately following a transgression, and this translated to less forgiveness. However, in Study 2, the negative effects of time delay on sincerity and forgiveness were mitigated or reversed when the apology was in the form of commemoration. The commemorative apology, in particular when delayed, gave rise to favorable attributions (including representativeness of apologizing group, commitment to remember, and giving voice to victims), which mediated the effects on sincerity. The results suggest that collective apologies that are offered with considerable delay appear less meaningful and less deserving of a forgiving response, unless the apologizing group is able to express consideration and thoughtfulness through the apology process.     

Why group apologies succeed and fail: intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions

It is widely assumed that official apologies for historical transgressions can lay the groundwork for intergroup forgiveness, but evidence for a causal relationship between intergroup apologies and forgiveness is limited. Drawing on the infrahumanization literature, we argue that a possible reason for the muted effectiveness of apologies is that people diminish the extent to which they see outgroup members as able to experience complex, uniquely human emotions (e.g., remorse). In Study 1, Canadians forgave Afghanis for a friendly-fire incident to the extent that they perceived Afghanis as capable of experiencing uniquely human emotions (i.e., secondary emotions such as anguish) but not nonuniquely human emotions (i.e., primary emotions such as fear). Intergroup forgiveness was reduced when transgressor groups expressed secondary emotions rather than primary emotions in their apology (Studies 2a and 2b), an effect that was mediated by trust in the genuineness of the apology (Study 2b). Indeed, an apology expressing secondary emotions aroused no more forgiveness than a no-apology control (Study 3) and less forgiveness than an apology with no emotion (Study 4). Consistent with an infrahumanization perspective, effects of primary versus secondary emotional expression did not emerge when the apology was offered for an ingroup transgression (Study 3) or when an outgroup apology was delivered through an ingroup proxy (Study 4). Also consistent with predictions, these effects were demonstrated only by those who tended to deny uniquely human qualities to the outgroup (Study 5). Implications for intergroup apologies and movement toward reconciliation are discussed.     

Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution

According to intergroup emotion theory, the impact of many intergroup events on intergroup outcomes is mediated by group-directed emotions. We demonstrate that the ability of apology to reduce retribution against and increase forgiveness of a transgressing outgroup is contributed to by discrete intergroup emotions. We examined both negative (anger and fear) and positive (respect and satisfaction) emotions directed toward the transgressing outgroup. Apology reduced the desire for retribution whereas lack of apology increased it, and outgroup-directed anger uniquely mediated this effect. In contrast, apology increased and lack of apology decreased forgiveness, particularly when the ingroup responded to the transgression, and only outgroup-directed respect mediated this effect. These results provide the first evidence that intergroup emotions can mediate the impact of apology on intergroup relations outcomes.     

Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness

This paper examines memory for collective apologies. Our interest was in determining whether people are aware of intergroup apologies and whether this contributes to forgiveness for offending groups. Surveys conducted in three nations affected by Japanese World War II aggression found that participants were more likely to believe (incorrectly) that Japan had not apologized for WWII than to believe (correctly) that they had (Study 1). In contrast, participants were eight times more likely to believe that a corporation had apologized for misconduct than to (correctly) recall that they had not (Study 1). Forgiveness levels were higher among those who believed the group had apologized than among apology deniers, although the effect was weak and inconsistent. However, in a follow‐up study that measured identification with the victim group it was found that high identifiers were significantly less likely to “remember” an apology (Study 2). Results suggest that memories for collective apologies are fluid and may not be causally related to intergroup forgiveness. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Different forms of intergroup contact with former adversary are linked to distinct reconciliatory acts through symbolic and realistic threat

In a society burdened with the most severe type of intergroup conflict, we examined the association between willingness to reconcile with former adversary, intergroup contact with, and perceived threat from former adversary. We focused on three reconciliatory acts—forgiveness to the outgroup, support for ingroup apology and support for financial compensation to the outgroup. We included different forms of positive and negative intergroup contact—direct and indirect (extended and mass‐mediated). In the link between contact and reconciliation, we tested the mediating role of two types of intergroup threat—realistic and symbolic. The sample comprised Bosniaks (N = 267) and Croats (N = 278) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In both samples, reconciliation associated with indirect forms of intergroup contact even when controlling for its link with direct contact. This indicates the potential of indirect contact to promote reconciliation in the lack of direct contact, characteristic for segregated post‐conflict societies. Symbolic threat mediated the relationship between intergroup contact and symbolic forms of reconciliation—forgiveness and support for ingroup apology. Realistic threat mediated the link between intergroup contact and a more tangible form of reconciliation—support for financial compensation. This highlights the importance of considering different types intergroup threat when targeting distinct reconciliatory acts. Our results suggest that practitioners promoting reconciliation in post‐conflict societies need to implement different means when tailoring interventions that should enhance different sides of peace‐making process.     

Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Forgiveness: Pessimistic Evidence but Constructive Implications

In the last three decades, there has been an explosion in the frequency with which leaders of groups have issued official apologies for collective transgressions. These apologies are commonly assumed to lay a pathway to forgiveness and reconciliation, but empirical examination of the downstream consequences of collective apologies is still in its infancy. In this article, we review a series of studies—including interview studies, survey studies, and experiments—that question the assumed wisdom that collective apologies lead to intergroup forgiveness. Reasons for the muted evidence of an apology–forgiveness link at the intergroup level are elaborated, and implications for how best to issue gestures of reconciliation and remorse are discussed.     

Acknowledging the skeletons in our closet: the effect of group affirmation on collective guilt, collective shame, and reparatory attitudes

Just as with threats to personal identity, people defend against social identity threats. In the context of intergroup injustice, such defensiveness undercuts collective guilt and its prosocial consequences. The current research examines whether group affirmation allows perpetrator groups to disarm threat without undermining guilt. In Study 1, men accepted greater guilt for gender inequality after affirming the ingroup. Given the distinction between collective guilt and collective shame, Studies 2-4 assessed both emotions and revealed that Canadians accepted greater guilt and shame over the mistreatment of Aboriginals following group affirmation. In Study 3, group affirmation also moderated the relation of each emotion with reparatory attitudes. When controlling for each other, collective shame predicted compensation in a nonaffirmation control condition whereas guilt predicted compensation once identity threat had been disarmed by group affirmation. In Study 4, the effect of group affirmation on the collective emotions was mediated by defensive appraisals of the injustice.     

The Role of Communicating Social Emotions Accompanying Apologies in Forgiveness

Apologies are an effective strategy used by transgressors to restore relationships with an injured party. Apologies are often motivated by emotions the transgressor feels in relation to the situation. We report the results of two studies that examined how an injured person's knowledge that an apology was driven by one or more of the social emotions of guilt, shame, and pity affected forgiveness. Findings suggest that the knowledge that guilt and/or shame motivated the apology increased forgiveness. In contrast, knowledge that pity induced the apology decreased forgiveness. These findings are consistent with the view that the communication of emotions has the social function of monitoring and shaping social relationships. We are grateful to the editor and an anonymous reviewer for their most helpful comments and suggestions to earlier versions of this paper.     

Impact of Conflict on Mental Health in Northern Ireland: The Mediating Role of Intergroup Forgiveness and Collective Guilt

The aim of the present research was to investigate the mediating role of group-level forgiveness and guilt in the relationship between victimhood (the extent to which the conflict affected an individual's life), exposure to violence (the level of violence in their area of residence), and group identity on the one hand, and mild psychiatric morbidity on the other. Specifically the study focused on the psychological impact of the ethnopolitical conflict in Northern Ireland, utilizing people's identification with either the Catholic or Protestant community. Our results revealed that intergroup forgiveness mediated the relationship between both victimhood and group identification, as predictors, and mild psychiatric morbidity. Collective guilt, on the other hand, mediated the relationship between both exposure to violence and group identification, as predictors, and intergroup forgiveness. Overall this study shows that forgiveness and collective guilt can act as mediators in the relationship between impact of ethnopolitical conflict and mental health, at the group level, and thus demonstrates their centrality to the reconciliation process. Implications for intergroup reconciliation initiatives in Northern Ireland are discussed.     

Collective guilt,moral outrage,and support for helping the poor: A matter of system versus in‐group responsibility framing

We examined how the framing of responsibility for reducing socio‐economic inequality affects individuals' emotional reactions towards the poor and the willingness to engage in prosocial actions. Attribution of responsibility to either the system (government and institutions), the less deprived in‐group, or the disadvantaged out‐group (poor) was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Consistent with our hypotheses, moral outrage was higher than collective guilt when system responsibility for inequalities was put forth, but collective guilt arose to reach the level of moral outrage when in‐group responsibility was emphasized. Moreover, distinguishing between collective guilt for action and for inaction, we found guilt for inaction more difficult and thus less likely to arise, unless responsibility was put on the in‐group. Collective emotions were also found to be negatively linked to system justification motivation illustrating the palliative function of legitimization processes. Finally, moral outrage predicted the willingness to act upon socio‐economic inequalities both when the system's and in‐group's responsibility was emphasized, whereas collective guilt for action (but not for inaction) predicted support for prosocial actions only when the in‐group's responsibility was engaged. These findings suggest that the specific group‐based emotions in response to poverty depend on whether the system or the in‐group is held responsible and differentially predict individuals' commitment to act.     

What happens when groups say sorry: the effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients

Despite the increased incidence of intergroup apology in public life, very little empirical attention has been paid to the questions of whether intergroup apologies work and if so, why. In a series of experiments, Australians read scenarios in which Australian interests had been harmed by an outgroup. Participants were then told that the outgroup had either apologized or had not apologized for the offense. Although the presence of an apology helped promote perceptions that the outgroup was remorseful, and although participants were more satisfied with an apology than with no apology, the presence of the apology failed to promote forgiveness for the offending group. This was the case regardless of whether the effectiveness of apology was measured cross-sectionally (Experiment 1) or longitudinally (Experiment 2). It was also the case when the apology was accompanied by victims advocating forgiveness (Experiment 3) and was independent of the emotionality of the apology (Experiment 4). In contrast, individuals who apologized for intergroup atrocities were personally forgiven more than those who did not apologize (Experiment 4). Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

群际宽恕的影响因素

群际宽恕(Intergroup Forgiveness)是指对曾经侵犯过本群的外群所具有的报复感、愤怒感以及不信任感的减少, 有意识地去理解、接近对方群体, 并积极地参与到对方群体中去的一种心理过程。学界对影响群际宽恕的因素进行了深入的研究, 分析了低人性化、竞争受害性、群体认同、愤怒、共情、道歉以及群体接触7个因素对群际宽恕产生的影响作用; 同时, 以影响因素的研究结论为基础, 不同的学者提出了提升宽恕水平, 缓和群体关系的干预性建议。但是, 作为一个新的研究主题, 还需要深入探讨群际宽恕的内部过程机制, 积极建立符合本土文化的干预模型。     

When intergroup apology is not enough: Seeking help and reactions to receiving help among members of low status groups

Relations between groups are characterized by competition and suspicion. As a consequence, members of low status groups may question the meaning of apologies offered by a high status group, especially under unstable status relations. In two experiments, the present research investigated the role of the intergroup versus interpersonal apology and the potential moderating effect of the stability of intergroup relations on low status group members' (a) help seeking (Study 1) and (b) responses to receiving help (Study 2) from a high status group. Consistent with our hypotheses, when status relations were unstable rather than stable, following a formal intergroup relative to an interpersonal apology by an Israeli official, Israeli‐Arab students sought less dependency‐oriented and more autonomy‐oriented help from an Israeli‐Jewish study coordinator (Study 1) and Jewish‐Ethiopian newcomers reacted more negatively when they read about an Ethiopian‐Jewish student receiving unsolicited dependency‐oriented help from an Israeli‐Jewish college student (Study 2). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

The Impact of Post‐Apology Behavioral Consistency on Victim's Forgiveness Intention: A Study of Trust Violation Among Coworkers1

This study extended past research and investigated how post‐apology behavioral consistency influences subsequent forgiveness in an organizational setting. Using a sample of 326 working adults, we confirmed that post‐apology behavioral consistency is an important boundary condition of the effectiveness of apology in eliciting forgiveness. Despite having received an apology, the victim's intention to forgive would be low if the perpetrator displayed behaviors inconsistent with the apology made, but would be reinforced by the offending colleague's behaving in accordance with the apology. People who have initially forgiven their colleagues are less susceptible to influences by subsequent post‐apology behavioral inconsistency, although trust continues to be harmed by repeat violations.     

On the Outcomes of Intergroup Apologies: A Review

Governments and political groups around the world are increasingly offering apologies to atone for past injustices. In recent years social psychologists have begun to empirically explore whether these apologies improve intergroup relations. We organize this literature into a framework outlining potential outcomes of intergroup apologies, mediators of those outcomes, and circumstances that allow those outcomes to be realized. Psychologists have focused most of their efforts around the questions of whether and when intergroup apologies elicit forgiveness and foster positive intergroup attitudes. Thus, in addition to outlining the present state of knowledge on intergroup apologies, this framework highlights areas that require further research; most notably, the model makes evident that we know little about what psychological states mediate intergroup apology effects.     

Disappointment expression evokes collective guilt and collective action in intergroup conflict: the moderating role of legitimacy perceptions

Research on intergroup emotions has largely focused on the experience of emotions and surprisingly little attention has been given to the expression of emotions. Drawing on the social-functional approach to emotions, we argue that in the context of intergroup conflicts, outgroup members’ expression of disappointment with one’s ingroup induces the complementary emotion of collective guilt and correspondingly a collective action protesting ingroup actions against the outgroup. In Study 1 conducted immediately after the 2014 Gaza war, Jewish-Israeli participants received information about outgroup’s (Palestinians) expression of emotions (disappointment, fear, or none). As predicted, outgroup’s expression of disappointment increased collective guilt and willingness to participate in collective action, but only among those who saw the intergroup situation as illegitimate. Moreover, collective guilt mediated the relationship between disappointment expression and collective action, moderated, again, by legitimacy perception. In Study 2, we replicated these results in the context of racial tension between Black and White Americans in the US. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of the findings.     

Identification with a wrongful subgroup and the feeling of collective guilt

The present study examined the relationship between group identification and the feeling of collective guilt. This study argued that identification with a subgroup of one's ingroup (subgroup identification) would predict the feeling of collective guilt better than identification with the whole ingroup (whole‐group identification). To manipulate the level of subgroup identification, we instructed participants to imagine the presence of a close friend (vs a friend of one's close friend) in a fictitious subgroup. In Experiment 1, we predicted and found that high subgroup identifiers experienced less collective guilt compared to low subgroup identifiers, regardless of their degree of whole‐group identification. In contrast, the results from Experiment 2 indicated that when the presence of the third party was made salient, high subgroup identifiers experienced more collective guilt in comparison to low subgroup identifiers. The importance of interpersonal connections for collective responsibility and the facilitating role of the third party for reconciliation of the intergroup conflicts are discussed.