A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.

Abstract

The authors propose that conflict threatens different psychological resources of victims and perpetrators and that these threats contribute to the maintenance of conflict (A. Nadler, 2002; A. Nadler & I. Liviatan, 2004; A. Nadler & N. Shnabel, in press). On the basis of this general proposition, the authors developed a needs-based model of reconciliation that posits that being a victim is associated with a threat to one's status and power, whereas being a perpetrator threatens one's image as moral and socially acceptable. To counter these threats, victims must restore their sense of power, whereas perpetrators must restore their public moral image. A social exchange interaction in which these threats are removed should enhance the parties' willingness to reconcile. The results of 4 studies on interpersonal reconciliation support these hypotheses. Applied and theoretical implications of this model are discussed.

Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan

“…Yet not only did people prefer to hear congruent information; receiving it provided validation that enabled them to entertain-and as a group, come to agreement on-ideas that would be anathema in a context where their identities were threatened (Lavine et al, 2005;Tho´risdo´ttir and Jost, 2011). This finding supports a ''needs-based'' approach to reconciliation, which argues that victims suffer from a feeling of powerlessness and require empowerment in order to accept conciliation (Shnabel and Nadler, 2008; see also Scobie and Scobie, 1998). Here, affirmation came not from acceptance of responsibility by the ''perpetrators,'' but rather from the supportive attitudes of other group members (and perceived victims), which amplified the thrust of the narrative.…”

“…For the conflict's losers, the primary barrier to reconciliation is a sense of powerlessness and low self-esteem, which can be remedied by recognition of injustice and reaffirmation of the perpetrators' guilt (Scobie and Scobie, 1998;Shnabel and Nadler, 2008). A starting point for intervention would be to affirm existing beliefs about victimhood and guilt as a salve for people's emotional needs, enabling them to engage in introspection and assimilate incongruent information (Redlawsk, 2002;Taber and Lodge, 2006).…”

Negotiating the past, imagining the future: Israeli and Palestinian narratives in intergroup dialog

“…Given the duration and centrality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (Bar-Tal, 2007), participants in our study were able to draw upon numerous instances in which the rival group had victimized them. An unjust act, Shnabel and Nadler (2008) note, creates a moral "debt" that the perpetrating group must "pay" in a manner and time of the victim's choosing. This situation, paradoxically, puts the victim in a position of power due to the moral status that being a victim confers while the perpetrator is placed in a position of identity threat.…”

Reparation Demands and Collective Guilt Assignment of Black South Africans

“…The link between identification with the victimised group and reparation demands is not only consistent with general social psychological theories on intergroup relations such as social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) but also with specific models developed particularly for post-conflict situations insofar as they assume that people are concerned with their group's interests and needs. For instance, based on Shnabel and Nadler's (2008) needs-based model of reconciliation one could argue that reparation demands related to emotions such as groupbased anger serve the victimised groups' need to restore their sense of power in that resources are transferred from the transgressor to the victimised group (i.e., distributive justice).…”