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

Abstract

In the context of collective apologies, we investigate whether offenders’ claim to have taken the victims’ perspective enhances victims’ conciliation. We argue this depends on whether offenders acknowledge emotions in victims that match victims’ emotional experience. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 152 and 171), using scenarios, we experimentally manipulated offenders’ claim and the qualitative or quantitative match of acknowledged emotions. When acknowledged emotions matched victims’ experience, claimed perceptive‐taking increased conciliatory victim responses; but when emotions did not match, the offenders’ claim reduced conciliatory victim responses. In Study 3 (N = 138), African‐Americans were presented with the U.S. government's apology for slavery. We manipulated the perspective‐taking claim and measured the similarity of the emotion profile expressed in the apology to that experienced by African‐Americans over their enslavement. With greater mismatch, the perspective‐taking claim backfired, reducing conciliatory responses. Correct acknowledgment of emotions is key for victims perceiving perspective‐taking and responding conciliatorily.

Let's talk about this: Co‐rumination and dyadic dynamics of moral repair following wrongdoing

“…Note again, however, that co‐reflection did not show any effects on forgiveness in the present research. Still, assuming that forgiveness is indeed a negotiated dyadic process, the question may be “what forms of engagement, or what outcomes of engagement, contribute to the victim's forgiveness?” Perhaps shared cognitive engagement is not sufficient unless it involves more listening than talking (Kluger et al., 2021), mutual perspective‐taking, and the perception that the other takes one's own perspective (Berndsen & Wenzel, 2021), expressions of respect, humility or conciliation that returns status and agency to the parties, or the reaffirmation of shared values (Wenzel & Okimoto, 2010).…”

Wenzel et al. (2023) Let’s talk about this: Co-rumination and dyadic dynamics of moral repair following wrongdoing

“…This process was repeated for a third and fourth survey. Thus, the study comprised four measurement points with 24-to 48-hr intervals (for a similar design, see Wenzel et al, 2021).…”

“…Yet, rumination can also be shared and interactive: co-rumination (see Rose, 2002). As forgiveness and self-forgiveness are dynamically interrelated in a dyadic process of moral repair (Wenzel et al, 2021), we need to gain a better understanding of the co-ruminative processes that occur following wrongdoing, in addition to victims' and offenders' own repetitive thinking.…”

“…The analyses indicated that a sample size of N = 110 dyads would be sufficient. While it is normally advised that power determination not occur on the basis of the observed effect sizes of the same study (Gelman, 2019), given the complexity and resourceintensity of the data collection, we decided this approach was an appropriate compromise (Wenzel et al, 2021). We collected further data until we obtained 110 complete dyads with data across all four timepoints.…”

Acts of contrition: Forgiveness and effective intergroup apologies for historical institutional abuse

“…65 Thus, while the emotional and psychological dynamics of apologies as a whole are undoubtedly complex and significant as apology research is beginning to countenance (see e.g. Berndsen and Wenzel, 2021), it is the relational rather than the rhetorical aspects of intergroup apologies which are the ultimate gauge of sincerity and key to promoting forgiveness or reconciliation for HIA among victimized communities.…”