What aspects of ingroup identification can lead people to resist justice for the victims of their ingroup's mistreatment? In three studies carried out in the US and UK, in which participants read reports of mistreatment of prisoners and civilians by coalition troops in the Iraq war, ingroup glorification, but not ingroup attachment or other individualdifference variables, was a key predictor of lesser demands for justice, but only when the perpetrators belonged to the ingroup. This effect of glorification was mediated by two moral disengagement mechanisms focusing on the outgroup: minimization of the emotional suffering of the victims' families, and explicit dehumanization of the victim group. These findings further reinforce the difference between glorification and other forms of ingroup identification, demonstrating that glorification is problematic in maintaining and fostering intergroup relations, because of its connection to moral disengagement.

How are intergroup conciliatory acts (apologies and reparations) evaluated by members of the perpetrator group offering them? This research tests whether these outcomes can be predicted by obligation shifting: the perception that a conciliatory act has shifted the onus away from the perpetrators and onto the victim group. Four experiments in different contexts examined three possible outcomes for members of the perpetrator group: satisfaction with the act, negative feelings towards the victims, and support for future assistance. Across all four experiments, perceptions of obligation shifting predicted satisfaction with conciliatory acts, as did the perception that the ingroup's image had improved. Furthermore, obligation shifting alone related to more negative feelings about the victims and predicted reduced support for further acts of assistance. Image improvement perceptions did not show these effects, and sometimes were related to less negative feelings about the victims. Directly manipulating impressions of obligation shifting and image improvement (Experiment 3) showed these relationships were causal. When there were differences between types of acts on the three outcome variables, obligation shifting and image perceptions mediated these relationships. The negative implications of obligation shifting, as well as the more encouraging role of image improvement perceptions, are discussed.Keywords: obligation shifting, apologies, reparations, image improvement, satisfaction In conflict, dwelling on past wrongs can be a psychological barrier to reconciliation (Nadler & Liviatan, 2006;Scheff, 1994). This is clear from the conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, which are fed by memories of past wrongdoings by both sides (Chrighton & Iver, 1991;Lundy & McGovern, 2010). But it can also be difficult to develop positive relations between groups just by ignoring the past. Increasingly often, leaders recognize their nations' bygone wrongdoings through intergroup conciliatory acts -such as official verbal apologies or offers of reparation (Brooks, 1999;Oliner, 2008). This makes it urgent to understand the potential outcomes of such acts for intergroup relations.Most existing research on the effectiveness of intergroup conciliatory acts has focused on the reactions of the victim group -with mixed results. Apologies from an official source appear to have no effect on victim group members' forgiveness (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008), which is troubling given that forgiveness is an important predictor of reconciliation after conflict (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008). However, other research has also suggested that offers of help from transgressor group members can increase willingness to reconcile, so long as there is a high level of trust toward the transgressing group (cf. Nadler & Liviatan, 2006).Other factors can also influence a victim group's satisfaction with a verbal apology: which emotions are expressed, (Giner-Sorolla, Castano, Espinosa, & Brown, 2008;Giner-Sorolla, Kamau, & Castano, 2010...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract