Improving the effectiveness of intergroup apologies: The role of apology content and moral emotions.

Abstract

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.

Sorry to ask but … how is apology effectiveness dependent on apology content and gender?

“…First, expanding upon recent literature that has emphasized the critical role of the apology’s quality (e.g., Fehr & Gelfand, 2010; R. J. Lewicki et al, 2016; Nunney & Manstead, 2021; ten Brinke & Adams, 2015), we detail how the individual apology components identified in prior research can be used to signal differing personal qualities. Specifically, we show that apologies can be uniquely constructed to convey greater agency or communality which should provide the recipient with information about the individual apologizer (i.e., apology components reflecting agentic or communal language can lead to attributions of assertiveness for women and interpersonal sensitivity for men), thereby shaping trustworthiness.…”

“…Recognizing that not all apologies are equally effective, extant literature has identified several factors that can enhance or diminish an apology’s effectiveness, with the content included in the apology having been shown to play a particularly important role (e.g., Fehr & Gelfand, 2010; Nunney & Manstead, 2021; ten Brinke & Adams, 2015). For instance, in their work on apology content, R.…”

“…Certainly, and toward this aim, the literature has increasingly emphasized the critical role of the apology’s quality or content (e.g., Fehr & Gelfand, 2010; R. J. Lewicki et al, 2016; Nunney & Manstead, 2021; ten Brinke & Adams, 2015); importantly, however, it has hitherto paid little attention toward the joint importance of the apology’s content and the source of the apology (i.e., the gender of the apologizer). Through showing how apologies can be constructed to convey greater agency or communality, and through demonstrating that apologies with an equivalent level of agency and/or communality can be perceived differently depending upon the gender of the person delivering it, we expand our theoretical understanding about the qualities that contribute to an effective apology and how they can be leveraged to aid trust repair.…”

Deeds, not words: Understanding intergroup apology and forgiveness from different sides of conflict.

“…Both interpersonal and intergroup apologies can be expressed by words, emotions, and behaviors. In an intergroup context, elaborateness of the apology does not contribute to the forgiveness (Steele & Blatz, 2014), but when relevant emotions, for example, shame or guilt (Giner-Sorolla et al, 2008; Nunney & Manstead, 2021), and the victimized group’s suffering are addressed (Berndsen et al, 2015), apology is strongly linked to forgiveness. Moreover, when no deeds follow apologies and no changes over time for the victims take place, apologies are not seen as trustworthy and cannot lead toward forgiveness (Wohl et al, 2011).…”

Victim-focused political apology predicts political support via perceived sincerity, trust and positive emotional climate: The case of the 2018 bushfire in Attica

“…In such an immediate interactive context, SMIR provides opportunities for contact between offenders and victims and a discussion of reparations on the basis of a shared understanding of what victims need. Exemplifying an incremental reconciliatory process, SMIR is supposed to positively effect on support and forgiveness of offenders (Nunney & Manstead, 2021).…”