Promoting Reconciliation Through the Satisfaction of the Emotional Needs of Victimized and Perpetrating Group Members: The Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2009
Promoting Reconciliation Through the Satisfaction of the Emotional Needs of Victimized and Perpetrating Group Members: The Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation
Guided by the Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation, we hypothesized that being a member of a victimized group would be associated with a threat to the status and power of one's ingroup, whereas being a member of a perpetrating group would threaten the image of the ingroup as moral and socially acceptable. A social exchange interaction through which victims feel empowered by their perpetrators and perpetrators feel accepted by their victims was thus predicted to enhance the parties' willingness to reconcile. Supporting the predictions across two experiments, members of the perpetrator group (Jews in Study 1 and Germans in Study 2) showed greater willingness to reconcile when they received a message of acceptance, rather than empowerment, from a member of the victimized group. Members of the victimized group (Arabs in Study 1 and Jews in Study 2) demonstrated the opposite effect. Applied and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430-1453.
2.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872-886.
3.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
4.
Exline, J.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 133-155). New York: Guilford Press.
5.
Foa, E.B., & Foa, U.G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange . In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 77-94). New York: Plenum Press.
6.
Herman, J.L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York : Basic Books.
7.
Insko, C.A., Kirchner, J.L., Pinter, B., Efaw, J., & Wildschut, T. (2005). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity as a function of trust and categorization: The paradox of expected cooperation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 365-385.
8.
Jackman, M.R. (1994). The velvet glove. Berkeley : University of California Press.
9.
Kelman, H.C. (1999). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 581-600.
10.
Kelman, H.C. (2004). The nature of international conflict: A social-psychological perspective. In H. J. Langholtz, & C.E. Stout (Eds.). The psychology of diplomacy. (pp. 59-77).Westport,CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
11.
Kelman, H.C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective . In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15-32). New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Mael, F.A., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.
13.
Maoz, I., & Bar-On, D. (2002). From working through the Holocaust to current ethnic conflicts: Evaluating the TRT group workshop in Hamburg. Group, 26, 29-48.
14.
McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L., Brown, S.W., & Hight, T.L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.
15.
Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence. Boston: Beacon Press.
16.
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary's expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients' trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459-470.
17.
Nadler, A., Malloy, T., & Fisher, J.D. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: Dimensions and themes . In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 3-12). New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: The instrumental and socio-emotional paths and the need based model of socio-emotional reconciliation . In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Philpot, C.R., & Hornsey, M.J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 474-487.
20.
Riek, B.M., Mania, E.W., & Gaertner, S.L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353.
21.
Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2004). Exonerating cognitions, group identifications, and personal values as predictors of collective guilt among Jewish-Israelis . In N. R. Brancombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 130-147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Rouhana, N.N. (2004). Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation processes: The Israeli-Palestinian case. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10, 33-52.
23.
Rubin, J.Z. (1980). Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin , 87, 379-391.
24.
Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lang, P.A.M. (1996). Interdependence processes . In E. T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564-596). New York: Guilford Press.
25.
Scheff, T.J. (1994). Bloody revenge: Emotions, nationalism and war . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
26.
Schönbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Shelton, J.N., Richeson, J.A., & Vorauer, J.D. (2006). Threatened identities and interethnic interactions . In W. Stoebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 312-358). New York: Psychology Press.
28.
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94, 116-132.
29.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008). The role of acceptance and empowerment from the perspective of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 159-186.
30.
Smith, E.R., Seger, C.R., & Mackie, D.M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431-446.
31.
Staub, E., Pearlman, L.A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 297-334.
32.
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
