Saying sorry: Shifting obligation after conciliatory acts satisfies perpetrator group members.

Abstract

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...

Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Forgiveness: Pessimistic Evidence but Constructive Implications

“…It might also be interpreted as a sign that the ball is now in the victim group's court to take the next steps in the process of reconciliation (referred to in the literature as "obligation shifting"). Interestingly, transgressor groups' support for an apology tends to be closely correlated with their sense that the apology has successfully shifted the moral obligation onto victims (Zaiser & Giner-Sorolla, 2013). So for transgressor group members, there is a danger that they see the apology as the end of a process, when the interview data suggest that for victim groups it is more like the start of a process (Mellor, Bretherton, & Firth, 2007).…”

Social Dominance Orientation Predicts Opposition to Hierarchy-Attenuating Intergroup Apologies

“…One such motive may relate to a feature common to many conflicts—the existence of a clear social hierarchy in which one group, typically the perpetrator, is high status and the other, typically the victim, is low status (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Although most intergroup apology research has explored contexts meeting this description (e.g., Barlow et al, 2015; Rotella, Richeson, & McAdams, 2015; Wohl, Matheson, Branscombe, & Anisman, 2013; Zaiser & Giner-Sorolla, 2013), the implications of this underlying hierarchical relationship between groups have been largely ignored (cf. Halabi, Dovidio, & Nadler, 2018; Shnabel, Halabi, & SimanTov-Nachlieli, 2015).…”

Collective Apologies Are Good at Regulating Transgressors’ Emotions, But for Victim Group Members the Story Is Not So Clear

“…In this sense victim group members might see a collective apology as the beginning of a process: an implicit contract that the transgressor group is committed to genuine change. For transgressor group members, in contrast, apologies can seem like the end of a process: an opportunity to draw a line between the past and the future, to have a fresh start, to shift the obligation of future reconciliation efforts onto the victim group, and to enjoy the moral unburdening that this implies (Zaiser & Giner-Sorolla, 2013). To the extent that this is the case, one might argue that collective apologies risk having asymmetrical effects: They might be tremendously effective at regulating the emotions of the transgressors but less successful at regulating the emotions of victims.…”