Providing compensation promotes forgiveness for replaceable,but not irreplaceable,losses

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to examine how the replaceability of a loss moderates the effectiveness of compensation. In Study 1, we sampled real-life experiences of experiential loss, material loss, or loss of materials to which the victims had special attachment, and assayed subsequent feelings toward the transgressor who caused the loss. The results showed that for those who reported losses of an experience or cherished material object, perpetrators’ offers of compensation did not facilitate forgiveness. In Study 2, by manipulating replaceability of hypothetical losses in vignettes, we showed that compensation for replaceable losses effectively elicits forgiveness from a victim, but compensation for irreplaceable losses is ineffective. A series of mediation analyses showed that the effect of replaceability on forgiveness is explained by the victim’s perception of whether their loss was sufficiently recovered. We discuss the function of compensation and its inherent limitations.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story

Despite the oft-cited positive effects of an apology on forgiveness, forgiveness does not always follow. In three studies we tested the ironic notion that, following an interpersonal transgression, an apology following an attribution of intent might further hinder, rather than benefit, the forgiveness process. The findings of three studies were systematically replicated and supported our primary prediction that, following attributions of intent, saying sorry does not always lead to forgiveness. When offenders intentionally committed a transgression, forgiveness was less likely following an apology. However, when offenses were unintentional, forgiveness was more likely following an apology. We also showed that these effects were explained by participants’ impression of the transgressor.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of Failing to Give an Apology and the Need-for-Cognition on Anger

This study examined how failing to give an apology would affect the anger of persons high and low in the need-for-cognition. We hypothesized that failing to apologize when there was an opportunity would lead to more anger than a no communication control condition, and that apologizing would lead to less anger than the control condition. Further, we hypothesized that these effects would be particularly strong in participants with a low need-for-cognition. To test these hypotheses 60 participants were put in an anger inducing situation and randomly assigned to one of three conditions: apology, no apology (fail to apologize), and control condition where there was no opportunity for an apology. As predicted, failure to apologize was associated with more anger than the control condition. With participants low in the need-for-cognition, the failure to apologize resulted in more anger than either the no communication control or the apology condition.     

Government Apologies for Historical Injustices

Scholars from various disciplines suggest that government apologies for historical injustices fulfill important psychological goals. After reviewing psychological literature that contributes to this discussion, we present a list of elements that political apologies should contain to be acceptable to both members of the victimized minority and the nonvictimized majority. Content coding of a list of government apologies revealed that many, but not all, include most of these elements. We then reviewed research demonstrating that political apologies that contain most of these facets are favorably evaluated, but especially by members of the nonvictimized majority. Next, we examined how the demands of victimized minorities affect their satisfaction with government apologies that lack some components. We conclude by discussing the implications of our analysis for when and how governments should apologize.     

How,when, and why transgressors’ narcissism affects motivation to apologize (or not)

Four studies were conducted to test the association between transgressors’ narcissism and their motivation to apologize or not, the extent to which victims’ vengeful and forgiving feedback moderated the association, and whether guilt and shame mediated the moderated association. Overall, narcissism was negatively related to apology and positively related to nonapology. However, these associations were qualified by victim feedback such that those with higher degrees of narcissism who received vengeful feedback were more nonapologetic and aggressive toward victims compared to those who received forgiving feedback. Finally, shame did not explain the moderated relation, however, the results for guilt were mixed.     

Re‐Member MOVE: The Anatomy of a Reconciliation

On May 13, 1985, Philadelphia city officials authorized the dropping of a bomb on a house in a residential neighborhood, killing 11 people of the MOVE organization—including five children—destroying 61 homes and rendering nearly 250 residents homeless. The years leading up to this tragedy involved multiple instances of police brutality, one of which resulted in the more than 40‐year incarceration of nine MOVE members (commonly known as the MOVE 9). In this first‐person account, we review literature on reconciliation and apologies, explore the value of reconciliation in community psychology, and reflect on our involvement as a reconciliation strategist and a community psychologist in initiating, developing and facilitating a reconciliation process. A model of iterative reconciliation as a creative multilevel and multipurpose tool relevant for community psychology is proposed. The reconciliation process began in September 2018 between key players involved with the MOVE organization and Philadelphia officials and community members and family and involved multiple community gatherings and conversations with many stakeholders. Ultimately, through the extensive reconciliation process, the authors facilitated the issuing of an apology on May 13, 2020 by the Council of the City of Philadelphia.