The Role of Forgiveness in Reconciliation

Auerbach, Yehudith

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166439.003.0008

Cited by 66 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding echoes results of some laboratory research (e.g., Philpot & Homsey, 2008 showing that official apologies have little or no effect on intergroup forgiveness. Such results mn in opposition to the abundance of research on interpersonal apologies that demonstrate a strong positive association between apology and forgiveness (Exline & Baumeister, 2000;McCullough et al, 1997McCullough et al, , 1998Ohbuchi et al, 1989;Wohl et al, 2006) as well as the overwhelming theoretical (as well political) discourse that rests on the presumption that official intergroup apologies are essential for intergroup forgiveness specifically and positive intergroup relations more generally (e.g., Auerbach, 2004Auerbach, , 2005Oliner, 2005;Tutu, 1999). The current research is the first to shed some empirical light on a possible reason for the muted effectiveness of intergroup apologies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Indeed, it has been argued that humanity has entered into an "age of apology" in which it has become increasingly normative for groups to apologize to each other for both historical and contemporary harms (Brooks, 1999). Because they allow transgressor groups to take responsibility for events in the past-and to express remorse for those events--intergroup apologies are seen by many to be a valuable tool for promoting intergroup forgiveness (e.g., Auerbach, 2004Auerbach, , 2005.…”

Section: Intergroup Apologies and Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.

Wohl¹,

Hornsey²,

Bennett³

2012

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

113

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely assumed that official apologies for historical transgressions can lay the groundwork for intergroup forgiveness, but evidence for a causal relationship between intergroup apologies and forgiveness is limited. Drawing on the infrahumanization literature, we argue that a possible reason for the muted effectiveness of apologies is that people diminish the extent to which they see outgroup members as able to experience complex, uniquely human emotions (e.g., remorse). In Study 1, Canadians forgave Afghanis for a friendly-fire incident to the extent that they perceived Afghanis as capable of experiencing uniquely human emotions (i.e., secondary emotions such as anguish) but not nonuniquely human emotions (i.e., primary emotions such as fear). Intergroup forgiveness was reduced when transgressor groups expressed secondary emotions rather than primary emotions in their apology (Studies 2a and 2b), an effect that was mediated by trust in the genuineness of the apology (Study 2b). Indeed, an apology expressing secondary emotions aroused no more forgiveness than a no-apology control (Study 3) and less forgiveness than an apology with no emotion (Study 4). Consistent with an infrahumanization perspective, effects of primary versus secondary emotional expression did not emerge when the apology was offered for an ingroup transgression (Study 3) or when an outgroup apology was delivered through an ingroup proxy (Study 4). Also consistent with predictions, these effects were demonstrated only by those who tended to deny uniquely human qualities to the outgroup (Study 5). Implications for intergroup apologies and movement toward reconciliation are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Intergroup Apologies and Forgivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.

Wohl¹,

Hornsey²,

Bennett³

2012

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

113

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most researchers agree that forgiveness should not be confused with pardoning, apology, forgetting or reconciliation (e.g. Auerbach 2004;McCullough, Pargament, and M. Zembylas and A. Michaelidou 266 Thoresen 2001). The differences between researchers studying forgiveness lie in their emphasis, reflecting their underlying conceptual and methodological assumptions (Hui and Chau 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Previous Research Definition Of Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the literature dealing with forgiveness from a philosophical perspective (see particularly Arendt 1958;Derrida 2001) is particularly helpful in further analysing the virtue, conditions and feasibility of forgiveness (Auerbach 2004). Arendt (1958) makes an important distinction between what she terms the thoughtlessness of ordinary transgressions, which deserve forgiveness, and the thoughtlessness of 'willed evil' that is unforgivable.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Previous Research Definition Of Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring children's perceptions of forgiveness at the interpersonal and political levels: emerging evidence in Cyprus

Zembylas

Michaelidou

2013

Education 3-13

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a case study of an action research investigation at a GreekCypriot classroom that explores 10-11-year-old children's perceptions of forgiveness at both the interpersonal and the political levels. The study indicates that participant children view forgiveness from a variety of perspectives that do not seem to differ a lot from adults; these perspectives, although not fully mature, reveal the complex elements of offering and asking for forgiveness. The following three perspectives are identified in the findings: children's reasons to ask for forgiveness; children's views on the conditions to offer forgiveness and children's perceptions of forgiveness at the political level. The findings have important implications for designing educational interventions on forgiveness.

show abstract

“…Although the South African TRC did not require perpetrators to apologize, President de Klerk did apologize in August 1996 to the country's black majority for the brutal violations of their rights during apartheid. 115 Observers of the TRC process in South Africa asserted that the need to grant forgiveness can be empowering to victims, who ultimately can choose whether or not to forgive the perpetrators of violence and other crimes. 116 While many apartheid victims skeptically equated forgiving with forgetting, Desmond Tutu argued, "In forgiving, people are not being asked to forget.…”

Section: South Africa and The Truth And Reconciliation Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Military Role in Reconciliation

Buckeye¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE MILITARY ROLE IN RECONCILIATION by MAJ Terrence H Buckeye, U.S. Army, 73 pages. Reconciliation remains an elusive concept in both domestic and international contexts as well as academic and governmental contexts. The military role in reconciliation remains even more elusive. As such, this monograph seeks to clarify what the appropriate role is for the US military in a reconciliation process. Moreover, it seeks to discount the role of the military as an enforcer of a reconciliation process. To do so, it first defines reconciliation and establishes a framework for understanding the process. Next, it assesses the adequacy of reconciliation's treatment in current US government doctrine. Finally, it evaluates three case studies of different reconciliation methods to illustrate the application of reconciliation and demonstrate the appropriateness of military force in these methods. The primary finding of this monograph is that military force plays a very small role in a reconciliation process beyond providing a secure environment. Neither military forces, nor any external actors for that matter, can force a divided society to reconcile. External actors who wish to facilitate a reconciliation process must predicate intervention on a clear understanding of the opposing sides' intentions regarding reconciliation. The secondary finding is that the US government's understanding of reconciliation is unclear and its treatment of reconciliation is inconsistent. Current US government doctrine on stability operations only addresses "postconflict states" and does not make the critical distinction between "post-interstate" conflict and "post-intrastate" conflict. Without this distinction, reconciliation will remain a neglected aspect of future stability operations. Moreover, continued misunderstanding of reconciliation will encourage some to advocate that reconciliation be a military responsibility, which could potentially undermine the success of future stability operations.

show abstract

The Role of Forgiveness in Reconciliation

Cited by 66 publications

References 0 publications

Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.

Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.

Exploring children's perceptions of forgiveness at the interpersonal and political levels: emerging evidence in Cyprus

Military Role in Reconciliation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About