Intergroup Reconciliation: Emotions Are Not Enough

Klar, Yechiel; Branscombe, Nyla R.

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2016.1163959

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though groups can deny their responsibility of harming, and there is disagreement about the rate at which such harm still occurs (see Nixon, 2011;Pinker, 2011), it is clear from these findings that group-based emotions such as guilt, shame, and anger can play a role in facilitating reparations. However, it is important for researchers interested in promoting reconciliation through reparations to bear in mind that, often, "emotions are not enough" (Klar & Branscombe, 2016). Researchers should The Dutch government should offer its apologies; make more money available to the harmed group for the things their ingroup has done continually take the perspective of the oppressed so that emotional responses to harmdoing are understood in terms of their potential to truly restore equity and not make the group-based emotions an end in themselves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group-Based Emotions and Support for Reparations: A Meta-analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the aftermath of intergroup harm, victim groups often claim rights for restitution. Research has assessed how members of perpetrator groups respond to such claims, revealing that group-based guilt, shame, and anger can predict support for reparations. Though they have distinct foci, these group-based emotions are based on appraisals of ingroup harmdoing and victim group disadvantage as illegitimate. This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between these three group-based emotions and support for reparations, defined as symbolic or material policies that address historical injustices or the legacies thereof. An overall estimate based on 101 effect sizes from 58 samples, N = 10,305, showed a strong effect, r = .44, and revealed no significant difference between the three types of emotions. Moderator analyses revealed that the relationship between groupbased guilt and reparations was weaker when the reparations required effort and stronger when the victims were Indigenous people; for shame, the relationship was weaker when the reparations required effort and stronger when the reparations contained symbolic elements; and for anger, the relationship was stronger when the victims were Indigenous people. Future research can further disentangle the conceptual overlap between these group-based emotions by explicitly testing heretofore under-examined yet important facets of intergroup contexts such as the timeframe of harm and the nature and meaning of the proposed reparations.Keywords Group-based emotions . Guilt . Shame . Anger . Reparations History is rife with examples of intergroup harm (Barkan, 2001). Intergroup harm has occurred around the globe and such harm includes genocide, colonization, slavery, and present-day discrimination. After harming another group, the perpetrator group will sometimes attempt reconciliation with the victim group through reparative actions (Brooks, 1999;De Greiff, 2006). Reparative actions can take many forms, such as formal apologies, social programs to benefit victims, and financial payments, and can have positive consequences for both victims and perpetrators (Allan et al., 2006;Maitner et al., 2006; Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 1998). A rich literature has shown that one important antecedent that motivates perpetrator groups to engage in reparative actions is the kind and degree of emotion that group members feel about their harmdoing. Group-Based Guilt, Shame, and AngerResearch drawing on the social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) proposes that, since group memberships contribute to the self-concept, individuals can feel group-based emotions that stem from appraising events related to the group's goals (Branscombe, 2004;Seger et al., 2009;Smith, 1993;Smith & Mackie, 2016). Individuals typically prefer to identify with groups perceived as moral; appraisals of one's group having illegitimately harmed another group, then, can pose a grave threat to the group, resulting in aversive groupbased emotions like guilt, shame, and anger. Group-Based Guilt and Sha...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group-Based Emotions and Support for Reparations: A Meta-analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the years, a significant body of literature has developed on psychological barriers to conflict resolution (Ross and Ward ; Kelman ; Bruneau and Saxe ; Bar‐Tal ; Bachar and Weiner ; Halperin ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ). Intergroup conflict is a multidimensional phenomenon with a variety of causes, including historical grievances, unequal distribution of power and other resources, competing visions for the future, and incompatible ideologies (Bar‐Tal ; Klar and Branscombe ). However, the literature on psychological barriers has observed that intergroup conflicts, whatever their root causes, are sustained and exacerbated by psychological mechanisms that inhibit resolution.…”

Section: Psychological Barriers and Intergroup Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Barriers to Resolving Intergroup Conflict: An Extensive Review and Consolidation of the Literature

Friend¹,

Malhotra²

2019

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews over sixty years of research on psychological barriers to intergroup conflict resolution and finds that scholars have identified eighty nominally different barriers that create or exacerbate intergroup conflict. In order to create a tractable list that would be more helpful to future scholars and practitioners, we consolidate this vast literature (e.g., by eliminating substantive and conceptual redundancies) to produce a list of twenty‐six “unique” psychological barriers. We further organize this inventory of barriers with a framework that distinguishes between “cognitive,” “affective,” and “motivated” psychological barriers. To better understand the literature ecosystem of research on psychological barriers, we employ a data visualization tool to illustrate the extent to which each of the twenty‐six unique barriers has been studied conjointly with every other barrier in the articles we reviewed. We then shift our attention to the work of scholars who have attempted, experimentally, to attenuate psychological barriers in negotiation and conflict settings, and identify five primary methods for doing so. Finally, we discuss the implications of our review for future work in this field.

show abstract

“…From a psychological perspective, this determination is not surprising. Numerous social psychology studies demonstrate that children of the second, third or even fourth generations still have strong feelings of resentment, shame, guilt or victimisation, especially when past injustices have not been adequately addressed by their parents’ generation (Klar and Branscombe, ).…”

Section: The Puzzle: Burning Narratives Of the Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Israeli and Palestinian Stories. Can Mediators Reconfigure Incompatible Narratives?

Rosoux

2019

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of further tensions and wars in the Middle East interconnects, oversimplifies and radicalizes narratives. The aim of the article is to question the scope and practical limits of the mediators’ power regarding parties’ representations of the past. The study is divided into four parts. The first describes the specific challenge faced by practitioners. The other parts explore the Israeli‐Palestinian case, focusing on three distinct approaches to contradictory narratives. The first can be summarized by the formula ‘neither nor’ (neither the Israeli narrative, nor the Palestinian narrative). In concealing interpretations of the past, mediators try to do away with the ‘tyranny of the past’. The second approach takes into consideration ‘both the Israeli and the Palestinian narratives’. It tends to be inclusive and to consider all interpretations of the past. The third and last approach applies a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ reasoning in order to forge new interpretations of the past. At each stage of the research, the purpose is to question the actual impact of these approaches. Do they enable the parties to move on, or do they reinforce the deadlock? Do they open the minds of the negotiators or do they rather close them?

show abstract

Intergroup Reconciliation: Emotions Are Not Enough

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Group-Based Emotions and Support for Reparations: A Meta-analysis

Group-Based Emotions and Support for Reparations: A Meta-analysis

Psychological Barriers to Resolving Intergroup Conflict: An Extensive Review and Consolidation of the Literature

Israeli and Palestinian Stories. Can Mediators Reconfigure Incompatible Narratives?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About