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

Abstract

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.

Offenders’ claims of taking the victims’ perspective can promote forgiveness, or backfire! The moderating role of correctly voicing the victims’ emotions in collective apologies

“…Whereas personal apologies have been shown to be a consistent predictor of interpersonal forgiveness (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010), collective apologies, while increasing victims’ satisfaction compared to no apology being offered, tend to have less consistent effects on intergroup forgiveness (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008). Fundamentally, the issue may reflect a problem of trust (Hornsey & Wohl, 2013); trust that the expressed remorse is genuine (Giner‐Sorolla, Castano, Espinosa, & Brown, 2008), that the offending outgroup is truly capable of the shame and guilt expressed in the apology (Wohl, Hornsey, & Bennett, 2012), that the apology is representative of the wider sentiment within the offender group (Wenzel, Okimoto, Hornsey, Lawrence‐Wood, & Coughlin, 2017), that the verbal apology is followed up with reparative action (Wohl, Matheson, Branscombe, & Anisman, 2013), and that the apology is not just a political ploy that serves ulterior motives (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008).…”

Repairing Trust Between Individuals and Groups: The Effectiveness of Apologies in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts

“…To begin with, group apologies are often made on behalf of the group by a leader or representative. In many situations, this means that the apology is delivered by someone who may not be directly responsible for the offense (Wenzel et al, 2018). This distinction may also mean that intergroup apologies are more formal, and more limited in emotional expression than interpersonal apologies (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008;Tavuchis, 1991).…”

“…These findings suggest that groups do not by definition respond neutrally or negatively to apologies with secondary emotions. Although groups may initially show greater skepticism toward such apologies, these may gain credibility in the longer run (e.g., by being substantiated by trustworthy behavior; see Wenzel et al, 2018) -and ultimately, may produce deeper reconciliation than is possible through apologies with (initially more credible, but less substantive) primary emotions.…”

“…It is possible that the apologies that people desire in intergroup interactions differ in comprehensiveness relative to interpersonal interactions. Furthermore, it may be that in intergroup interactions, people place greater value on tangible compensation than on apology (Haesevoets et al, 2013;Wenzel et al, 2018). By examining these processes, future research could illuminate how disputes between groups can best be restored -and how the recipe for doing so may differ from what is required in disputes between individuals.…”

Close or Distant Past? The Role of Temporal Distance in Responses to Intergroup Violence From Victim and Perpetrator Perspectives

“…In the case of retributive justice, for example, putting perpetrators on trial immediately after the conflict might threaten a recent and fragile transition from violence to peace (e.g., Zalaquett, 1990). On the contrary, failure to provide an effective and timely response to victims' strong need for justice can hinder forgiveness and obstruct reconciliation efforts in the long run (e.g., Backer, 2010;Li et al, 2018;Wenzel et al, 2018). The question at stake, therefore, is what role the passage of time plays in victims' and perpetrators' responses to large-scale intergroup violence.…”