Allowing the victim to draw a line in history: Intergroup apology effectiveness as a function of collective autonomy support

Abstract

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.

Preferences for different representations of colonial history in a Canadian urban indigenous community

“…Maintaining a sense of agency is crucially important for fostering collective resistance to inequality and injustice as it allows group members to feel that oppression is not inevitable, social change is possible, and the collective actions of one's group can bring it about (Drury & Reicher, 2009;Elcheroth et al, 2011;Haslam & Reicher, 2012;Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This aligns with recent research in social psychology that has examined how collective autonomy promotes psychological well-being (Kachanoff et al, 2019), and the importance of ingroup agency within the context of intergroup reconciliation (Kachanoff, Caouette, Wohl, & Taylor, 2017;Shnabel & Nadler, 2015). As our participants suggested, representations of colonial history that solely emphasize the victimization of Indigenous peoples can strip this agency away, and portray Indigenous peoples as conquered, beaten cultures with no hope of self-determination.…”

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

“…Agency threats concern low power and loss of control, and accordingly victim groups seek empowerment by restoring agency and control in various ways. Arguably, other unmet needs of victim groups are also disempowering, such as the unmet need for justice (Li, Leidner, Petrović, Orazani, & Rad, ), collective autonomy (Kachanoff, Caouette, Wohl, & Taylor, ; Kachanoff, Wohl, & Taylor, in press), or acknowledgment (Noor et al, ; SimanTov‐Nachlieli et al, ; Vollhardt et al, ). These needs shape how the ingroup’s victimization is construed and characterized, including perceptions of “who is the victim” (SimanTov‐Nachlieli et al, ; Vollhardt, ) or the severity of harm (Noor et al, ).…”

Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

“…Fifth, recent research (Thomas, Amiot & Louis, ) suggests that group members may also be highly sensitive to the perceived motivations (self‐determined and non‐self‐determined) of other group members and leaders—i.e., their collective self‐determination (see also, Kachanoff, Caouette, Wohl, & Taylor, ). Analogous to the processes of SDT at the individual level, where group action is perceived to be motivated authentically (self‐determined, internalised), collective self‐determination has been found to promote higher pride in the group, feelings of well‐being, and persistence in the face of adversity.…”