Hornsey & Wohl (2013). We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness. - Article summary

Intergroup apologies have increased significantly since the second world war. A failure to acknowledge transgressions of the past can breed intergroup conflict in the future. High levels of collective guilt promote greater intentions to compensate for an historical transgression.

For the victim, intergroup apologies represent an acknowledgement of past harm (1), an affirmation of shared moral standards (2), a recalibration of power and status relationships (3), a bestowment of dignity (4), a symbolic gesture of intent for the future (5) and a chance to move forward (6).

For perpetrators, intergroup apologies represent an opportunity to unshackle the collective memory from guilt (1), a removal of a moral stain (2) and an investment in reconciliation and intergroup harmony in the future (3).

Apologies refer to communications in which offending parties acknowledge responsibility or guilt for an offence and express regret or remorse for this offence to an offended party. It requires the expression of responsibility. Apologies often contain promises of forbearances and offer of repair. Forgiveness refers to the belief that it involves a change in emotion and attitude away from the negative states regarding the offender towards more positive states. Forgiveness of the conflict does not equal forgetting the conflict.

People are more willing to forgive transgressions committed by their own group members than by similar transgressions attributed to the outgroup. Seeing the perpetrator as part of a common, inclusive social category (e.g. humans) promotes forgiveness.

Apologising appears to lead to a reduced desire for retribution and increased forgiveness. The desire for retribution is mediated by anger. Forgiveness is mediated by respect. Generally, people seem to be more willing to forgive when there is an apology. However, some research shows that there is no evidence for an apology-forgiveness link.

There is research that suggests that there is potential for interpersonal apologies to produce interpersonal forgiveness but intergroup apologies have no observable effect on intergroup forgiveness.

Process models emphasise the temporal evolution of forgiveness. Apologies and other gestures of reconciliation plant a seed of forgiveness that may bloom after a period of emotional and cognitive processing. People’s representation of apology histories appeared to be largely unfitting with reality.

Historical victimhood may offer a rallying point for solidarity and defending the group from accusations of moral transgression. The more people believe that an apology is sincerely offered, the greater their expectations that the apology would improve intergroup relations. The link between an apology and forgiveness appears to weaken over time. It is possible that this occurs because expectations are not being met.

The offer of compensation with an apology is seen as insulting but less so when the apology is based on shame rather than guilt.

Primary emotions refer to primitive, basic emotions experienced by both humans and other animals (e.g. fear, anger). Secondary emotions refer to higher-order emotions, presumed to be experienced only by humans (e.g. shame, guilt). The capacity to experience secondary emotions is attributed more to ingroups than to outgroups. The more the outgroup is denied the capacity to experience secondary emotions, the less likely they are to be forgiven following an intergroup transgression.

If outgroups express secondary emotions, there may be a plausibility gap between what the outgroup claims to feel and what the outgroup is believed to have the capacity to feel. This gap might undermine forgiveness. This means that expressing secondary emotions in an intergroup apology might be counter-productive.

When an apology is delivered by an outgroup, it promoted more forgiveness when it was expressed in primary emotions rather than secondary emotions. Using an ingroup member to apologize may lead to more forgiveness because it reduces suspicion around emotional genuineness.

Primary victims do not have to seek permission to forgive (1) and may be more motivated to forgive (2) as forgiveness can be a form of self-nurturing. Outgroup trust is a critical predictor for forgiveness. Trust may be a critical moderator of the effect of conciliatory statements on willingness to forgive.