In interpersonal relations, it is known that expressing self-conscious emotions such as guilt and shame following a transgression is beneficial to reconciliation. In the current research, we examine whether this also applies to intergroup relations. Groups of three persons played an intergroup version of the "centipede game," in which one party can cooperate with or exploit another party. In Study 1, two groups played six rounds of this game in each of two phases. Between phases, groups rated how much guilt, shame, and pride they experienced in relation to how they had performed in Phase 1; these ratings were shared with the opposing group. Groups expressing high levels of guilt and shame were associated with greater cooperation in Phase 2, whereas groups expressing high levels of pride were associated with lower cooperation in Phase 2. In Study 2, all groups played against a "group" programmed to behave in an exploitative way in Phase 1. This group then expressed shame, pride, or no emotion (control) about its performance. Cooperation in Phase 2 was significantly higher in the shame than in the pride condition, and altruistic punishment was highest in the pride condition and lowest in the shame condition. Between them, these studies show that emotional expression plays an important role in repairing intergroup relationships and in particular that expressing shame about a transgression enhances intergroup cooperation following a transgression.

We report three studies reported in which we examined how changing the content of an intergroup apology affects how the apology is received. In Study 1, we investigated how emphasizing structural, relational, or identity-related factors influenced reactions to an apology from a large group, a small group, and from an individual. There was limited evidence that these apology variations affected the way in which the two group apologies were received, but there were large differences in the individual apology condition, where the influence of these factors was mediated by perceptions of the transgressor. In Studies 2 and 3, we combined all three apology factors into an apology from a large group, comparing this with a control condition in which none of these factors was included. We also manipulated the expression of remorse (Study 2) and of shame and guilt (Study 3) emotion in the apology. Including the apology factors increased forgiveness, an effect again mediated by perceptions of the transgressor. Higher expression of remorse, guilt, and (especially) shame also increased forgiveness, relative to control conditions. The implications for enhancing the effectiveness of intergroup apologies are discussed. Public Significance StatementIn the present research we vary the content of an intergroup apology and show that addressing concerns about equality, trustworthiness and identity in the apology increase the likelihood of forgiveness, as does expressing shame. The findings serve as an antidote to the view that apologies are generally ineffective in achieving intergroup reconciliation.

There is a widespread assumption that intergroup apologiesapologies offered by one group to another group-provide an important basis for achieving reconciliation between these groups (e.g., Branscombe & Cronin, 2010;Tavuchis, 1991). This assumption is reflected in the marked increase in large-scale apologies being delivered by countries, political parties, businesses and corporations, leading to the suggestion that we have entered an "age of apology"

No abstract