The sincerity of an apology is often critical for it to be viewed positively by victims. For collective apologies, we argue that sincerity takes on a particular meaning: It is a function of the apology’s perceived representativeness for the offender group’s will or sentiment. Consistent with this notion, when an apologetic (vs. nonapologetic) message was democratically chosen (Study 1) or explicitly endorsed by the majority of the offending outgroup (Study 2), it was considered more sincere and, through this, led to more forgiveness. Furthermore, while disagreement about an apology within the offender group reduced its perceived representativeness and sincerity, this was less so when the dissenters could be subtyped: when disagreement was correlated with an existing subgroup within the offending outgroup (Study 3) and in line with expectations for that subgroup (Study 4). This research shows that victim group members consider intragroup processes within the offending outgroup for attributions of sincerity.
BlatzC. W.SchumannK.RossM. (2009). Government apologies for historical injustices. Political Psychology, 30, 219-241.
2.
BrooksR. L. (1999). When sorry isn’t enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for human injustice. New York: New York University Press.
3.
BrownR. P.WohlM. J. A.ExlineJ. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1406-1419.
4.
ChapmanA. R. (2007). Truth commissions and intergroup forgiveness: The case of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 51-69.
5.
DarbyB. W.SchlenkerB. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 742-753.
6.
EatonJ.StruthersC.SantelliA. G. (2006). The mediating role of perceptual validation in the repentance-forgiveness process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1389-1401.
7.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Giner-SorollaR.CastanoE.EspinosaP.BrownR. (2008). Shame expressions reduce the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 519-526.
9.
HareliS.EisikovitsZ. (2006). The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologies in forgiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 189-197.
10.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
HornseyM. J.WohlM. J. A. (2013). We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 1-31.
12.
InskoC. A.SchoplerJ.HoyleR. H.DardisG. J.GraetzK. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68-79.
13.
LeonardD. J.MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198-1206.
14.
MellorD.BrethertonD.FirthL. (2007). Aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australia: The dilemma of apologies, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 11-36.
15.
MillerC. E.JacksonP.MuellerJ.ScherschingC. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325-332.
16.
NadlerA.LiviatanI. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459-470.
17.
OakesP. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 117-141). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
18.
OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.TurnerJ. C. (1998). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. In WorchelS.MoralesJ. F.PaezD.DeschampsJ.-C. (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives (pp. 75-92). London, England: SAGE.
19.
OhtsuboY.WatanabeE.KimJ.KulasJ. T.MulukH.NazarG.. . . ZhangJ. (2012). Are costly apologies universally perceived as being sincere? A test of the costly apology-perceived sincerity relationship in seven countries. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 187-204.
20.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In HegtvedtK.Clay-WarnerJ. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 291-326). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
21.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM.HornseyM. J. (2015). Apologies demanded yet devalued: Normative dilution in the age of apology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 133-136.
22.
PhilpotC. R.BalvinN.MellorD.BrethertonD. (2013). Making meaning from collective apologies: Australia’s apology to its indigenous peoples. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19, 34-50.
23.
PhilpotC. R.HornseyM. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 474-487.
24.
PhilpotC. R.HornseyM. J. (2011). Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 96-106.
25.
PutnamR. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427-460.
26.
ReicherS. (1996). Social identity and social change: Rethinking the context of social psychology. In RobinsonW. P. (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 317-336). Oxford, UK: Betterworth-Heinemann.
27.
RichardsZ.HewstoneM. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52-73.
28.
SchumannK. (2012). Does love mean never having to say you’re sorry? Associations between relationship satisfaction, perceived apology sincerity, and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 997-1010.
29.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (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.
30.
SmithN. (2008). I was wrong: The meanings of apologies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
SteeleR. R.BlatzC. W. (2014). Faith in the just behavior of others: Intergroup apologies and apology elaboration. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2, 268-288.
32.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
TurnerJ. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
34.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G. (2010). How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 401-417.
35.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G. (2014). On the relationship between justice and forgiveness: Are all forms of justice made equal?British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 463-483.
36.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G. (2015). “We forgive”: A group’s act of forgiveness and its restorative effects on members’ feelings of justice and sentiments towards the offender group. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 655-675.
37.
WohlM. J. A.BranscombeN. R.KlarY. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one’s group has done wrong. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 1-37.
38.
WohlM. J.Cohen-ChenS.HalperinE.CaouetteJ.HayesN.HornseyM. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 714-725.
39.
WohlM. J. A.HornseyM. J.BennettS. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 306-322.
40.
WohlM. J. A.HornseyM. J.PhilpotC. R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, 70-100.
41.
WohlM. J. A.MathesonK.BranscombeN. R.AnismanH. (2013). 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. Political Psychology, 34, 713-729.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
