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.     

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.     

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.     

Victim and Perpetrator Groups' Responses to the Canadian Government's Apology for the Head Tax on Chinese Immigrants and the Moderating Influence of Collective Guilt

European and Chinese Canadians' perceptions and expectations of the Canadian government's apology for the head tax placed on Chinese immigrants during the early twentieth century were examined, along with Chinese Canadians' willingness to forgive the transgression. Among both European and Chinese Canadians, beliefs about the importance attributed to the event and perception of the apology as deserved and sincere heightened expectations of improved intergroup relations. Collective guilt acceptance among European Canadians heightened the relation between perceived sincerity and positive expectations, whereas collective guilt assignment by Chinese Canadians heightened the relation between sincerity and forgiveness. A one‐year follow‐up of whether Chinese Canadians were equally satisfied with the apology indicated that their willingness to grant forgiveness had waned, and although on the whole expectations of improved relations were met, those who assigned more collective guilt were less convinced. Intergroup apologies and their effectiveness at facilitating intergroup relations are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The ironic impact of intergroup apologies on intergroup attitudes: Understanding the role of perceived power for post‐apology outgroup attitudes

The present research investigates how intergroup apologies, defined as apologies between two groups, affect perceived remorse and outgroup attitudes (e.g., explicit and implicit), in the context of power asymmetries. We recruited participants from two countries that differ in perceived power: South Korea and the United States. Participants read a vignette describing a violent act committed by an outgroup member (Korean or American), with or without an intergroup apology. Participants answered questions assessing perceived remorse and explicit attitudes toward the outgroup, followed by the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Results revealed that Koreans perceived less remorse following an intergroup apology from the United States, compared to when they did not read an intergroup apology. Further, a mediated moderation analysis indicated that perceived remorse mediated the relationship between apology and explicit attitudes towards the United States. However, an analogous effect for implicit attitudes was only marginally significant. In contrast, among American participants, no effect of the apology on perceived remorse, explicit attitudes, or implicit attitudes and no evidence for a mediation was found. We discuss the implications of these effects on understanding the effectiveness of intergroup apologies between countries that differ in perceived power.     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable

The authors examined how conciliatory gestures exhibited in response to interpersonal transgressions influence forgiveness and feelings of friendship with the transgressor. In Study 1, 163 undergraduates who had recently been harmed were examined longitudinally. Conciliatory gestures exhibited by transgressors predicted higher rates of forgiveness over 21 days, and this relationship was mediated by victims' perceptions of their transgressors' Agreeableness. Study 2 was an experiment including 145 undergraduates who experienced a breach in trust from an anonymous partner during an iterated prisoner's dilemma. When transgressors apologized and offered financial compensation, participants reported higher levels of forgiveness and feelings of friendship when compared to a control condition and an aggravating condition. The effects of apology/compensation on forgiveness and perceived friendship were mediated by victims' perceptions of their transgressors' Agreeableness. Results suggest that conciliatory gestures promote forgiveness in part by depicting transgressors as more sympathetic, considerate, fair, and just (i.e., agreeable).     

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.     

如何道歉更有效:调节聚焦与信息框架的作用

本研究结合调节聚焦理论探讨了如何道歉更有效。两个实验通过启动不同调节聚焦,创设冒犯情境并呈现不同框架的道歉信息,考察调节聚焦与道歉框架对道歉效果的影响。结果表明,向促进聚焦的受害者呈现积极框架的道歉信息、向防御聚焦的受害者呈现消极框架的道歉信息能改善受害者对冒犯者的评价,降低交往回避倾向,获得较好的道歉效果,且正确感是此种影响发生的内在机制。     

‘I’ll Make It Up to You:’ Examining the effect of apologies on forgiveness

Receiving an apology is a key component to the management of conflict and the likelihood that forgiveness will occur. However, not all apologies are effective at alleviating interpersonal conflict. The current research focused on the content of an apology (e.g. ‘I’ll make it up to you; I was wrong; I feel bad that I did this …’) and the differential impact this content may have on self-reported and behavioral forgiveness among young adults. Seven different apologies were designed and tested for effectiveness within an experimentally created transgression. Undergraduate students (N = 199) completed a distribution of resources task in which the researchers simulated a transgression experience without the students’ knowledge. Following the transgression, students received one of the seven apologies. Results indicate that receiving an apology that expressed a desire to compensate for wrongdoing appeared to be the most effective apology in terms of promoting both self-reported and behavioral forgiveness.     

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.     

When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness

Apologies are useful social tools that can act as catalysts in the resolution of conflict and inspire forgiveness. Yet as numerous real-world blunders attest, apologies are not always effective. Whereas many lead to forgiveness and reconciliation, others simply fall on deaf ears. Despite the fact that apologies differ in their effectiveness, most research has focused on apologies as dichotomous phenomena wherein a victim either (a) receives an apology or (b) does not. Psychological research has yet to elucidate which components of apologies are most effective, and for whom. The present research begins to address this gap by testing the theory that perpetrators’ apologies are most likely to inspire victim forgiveness when their components align with victims’ self-construals. Regression and hierarchical linear modeling analyses from two studies support the primary hypotheses. As predicted, victims reacted most positively to apologies that were congruent with their self-construals.     

Accepting Forgiveness

Forgiving wrongdoers who neither apologized, nor sought to make amends in any way, is controversial. Even defenders of the practice agree with critics that such “unilateral” forgiveness involves giving up on the meaningful redress that victims otherwise justifiably demand from their wrongdoers: apology, reparations, repentance, and so on. Against that view, I argue here that when a victim of wrongdoing sets out to grant forgiveness to her offender, and he in turn accepts her forgiveness, he thereby serves some important ends of apology and reparation, no matter what else he did—or did not do—by way of repair. Although much overlooked, the simple act of accepting forgiveness joins victim and offender in affirming and acting upon some important shared background assumptions, including many of those expressed in standard apologies. Perhaps more surprisingly, I argue that accepting forgiveness also fulfills the duty to counteract any concrete harm wrongfully inflicted. The argument helps explain some otherwise puzzling features of forgiveness, including that a victim can change her offender’s normative status, making him a less fitting target of the resentment, indignation and shunning of others, and even his own guilt pangs, simply by forgiving him.

     

Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses?

Benefits of forgiveness have been well documented, but past research has not directly addressed the crucial question of whether forgiveness deters or invites repeat transgressions. Our research indicates that expressing forgiveness typically discourages future offenses. In Study 1, participants playing a form of the prisoner’s dilemma game were more likely to repeat their transgressions against unforgiving victims than forgiving victims, especially when victims had no chance to retaliate. In response to a hypothetical scenario presented in Study 2, participants reported that they would be less likely to risk offending someone for a second time if that person had forgiven their first offense. In Study 3, participants’ autobiographical recollections of their prior transgressions revealed that receiving forgiveness predicted higher repentance motivation.     

Apology mismatch: An experimental approach to Japan's apologies to Korea

Since 1965, Japan has issued numerous apologies to Korea, which however failed to resonate with the Korean public. To investigate this puzzle, this paper analyses the structure of these apologies and empirically examines their reception in Korea. Blatz et al.'s (Political Psychology, 2009, 30, 219) classification of components of political apologies was applied to conduct a qualitative analysis of 63 official apology statements by Japan to Korea and identify the most frequently used components (Study 1). Korean participants (N = 210) were randomly presented with an experimental vignette consisting of a major apology component to examine their psychological responses, and they also ranked the importance of each major apology component (Study 2). Results showed that while Koreans viewed admission of wrongdoing as an essential and the most demanded component of apology, it was paradoxically the least frequent component offered by Japan in reality.     

“I Am Sorry to Send You SPAM”

A series of studies investigating cultural differences in apology usage in unsolicited email advertising messages (i.e., SPAM) are reported. Study 1 documented that in comparison to American SPAM, a greater percentage of Korean SPAM included apologies. The next five studies (Ns= 516, 3132, 662, 524, 536) tested various explanations for cross‐cultural differences in uses of, and responses to, apologies. Findings indicated that advertising messages containing apologies were not necessarily more effective than advertising messages without apologies. Koreans, however, considered advertising messages with apologies as more credible and normal and exhibited a greater tendency to model other people's apology use than did Americans. Thus, the frequent presence of apologies in Korean unsolicited email advertising is likely to be based on Koreans' modeling behavior (i.e., a greater tendency to follow social norms).     

Taking up offenses: secondhand forgiveness and group identification

When a person or group is mistreated, those not directly harmed by the transgression might still experience antipathy toward offenders, leading to secondhand forgiveness dynamics similar to those experienced by firsthand victims. Three studies examine the role of social identification in secondhand forgiveness. Study 1 shows that the effects of apologies on secondhand victims are moderated by level of identification with the wronged group. Study 2 shows that identification with the United States was associated with less forgiveness and greater blame and desire for retribution directed at the 9/11 terrorists, and these associations were primarily mediated by anger. Finally, Study 3 shows that participants whose assimilation needs were primed were less forgiving toward the perpetrators of an assault on ingroup members than participants whose differentiation needs were primed, an effect that was mediated by empathy for the victims.