Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness

Abstract

This paper examines memory for collective apologies. Our interest was in determining whether people are aware of intergroup apologies and whether this contributes to forgiveness for offending groups. Surveys conducted in three nations affected by Japanese World War II aggression found that participants were more likely to believe (incorrectly) that Japan had not apologized for WWII than to believe (correctly) that they had (Study 1). In contrast, participants were eight times more likely to believe that a corporation had apologized for misconduct than to (correctly) recall that they had not (Study 1). Forgiveness levels were higher among those who believed the group had apologized than among apology deniers, although the effect was weak and inconsistent. However, in a follow-up study that measured identification with the victim group it was found that high identifiers were significantly less likely to ''remember'' an apology (Study 2). Results suggest that memories for collective apologies are fluid and may not be causally related to intergroup forgiveness.

Institutional apologies and socio‐emotional climate in the South American context

“…However, institutional apologies have been usually studied in contexts of a between‐group conflict, where both sides are clearly defined (e.g., Ferguson et al ., ; Philpot & Hornsey, ; Wohl, Matheson, Branscombe, & Anisman, ). Apologies in the context of a within‐group conflict are a less studied phenomenon.…”

Victim and Perpetrator Groups' Responses to the Canadian Government's Apology for the Head Tax on Chinese Immigrants and the Moderating Influence of Collective Guilt

“…However, empirical evidence of the effects of such apologies has not been consistent. For example, whereas intergroup apology has been shown to lead to intergroup forgiveness in some contexts (Brown, Wohl, & Exline, ), in others this relationship may be absent (Philpot & Hornsey, , ).…”

Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding)

“…Within organizations, effectiveness and learning may be hindered by a leader's reluctance to admit error and take responsibility, perhaps indicative of a more fundamental tension between the organizational goals that leaders are charged with implementing and their self‐oriented goals to maintain power and status (see Magee, Gruenfeld, Keltner, & Galinsky, ). In intergroup contexts, symbolic apologies in response to historical victimizations are a common strategy for trying to promote reconciliation (see Blatz & Philpot, ; Chapman, ; Philpot & Hornsey, , ; Wohl, Hornsey, & Bennett, ), but the debate about whether or not such apologies should be conferred often becomes a major political issue, giving rise to added contention between groups. Recognition of the self‐serving consequences of nonconciliatory behaviors, which may deny victims of harm psychological closure, provides much needed insight into the psychology of unrepentant harm‐doers.…”