People who value social hierarchy may resist giving intergroup apologies because such apologies may attenuate the very hierarchies that these people value. We tested this claim across four studies (total N = 541) by examining associations between social dominance orientation (SDO)—a measure of preference for social hierarchy—and support for intergroup apologies. We found that higher SDO scores, and specifically the antiegalitarianism subdimension (social dominance orientation–egalitarianism [SDO-E]), predicted less apology support among U.S. residents in both domestic (Study 1) and international (Study 2) contexts. In Study 3, we found that the effect generalizes to an Australian cultural context. In Study 4, we demonstrated that the negative effect of SDO-E can extend to third-party contexts and is only observed when apologizing would be hierarchy attenuating. These studies show that the desire to maintain social hierarchies is an important driver of opposition to hierarchy-attenuating intergroup apologies.
AsbrockF.SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324-340. doi:10.1002/per.746
5.
BarlowF. K.ThaiM.WohlM. J. A.WhiteS.WrightM.-A.HornseyM. J. (2015). Perpetrator groups can enhance their moral self-image by accepting their own intergroup apologies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 39-50. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.001
6.
BerndsenM.HornseyM. J.WohlM. J. A. (2015). The impact of a victim-focused apology on forgiveness in an intergroup context. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 726-739. doi:10.1177/1368430215586275
7.
BlatzC. W.DayM. V.SchryerE. (2014). Official public apology effects on victim group members’ evaluations of the perpetrator group. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 337-345. doi:10.1037/a0031729
8.
BrownR. P.WohlM. J. A.ExlineJ. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1406-1419.
9.
ČehajićS.BrownR. (2008). Not in my name: A social psychological study of antecedents and consequences of acknowledgment of in-group atrocities. Genocide Studies and Prevention, 3, 195-211. doi:10.3138/gsp.3.2.195
10.
ČehajićS.BrownR. (2010). Silencing the past: Effects of intergroup contact on acknowledgment of in-group responsibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 190-196. doi:10.1177/1948550609359088
11.
Čehajić-ClancyS.EffronD. A.HalperinE.LibermanV.RossL. D. (2011). Affirmation, acknowledgment of in-group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 256-270. doi:10.1037/a0023936
12.
ChenP. Y.PopovichP. M. (2002). Correlation: Parametric and nonparametric measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
ChowR. M.KnowlesE. D. (2016). Taking race off the table: Agenda setting and support for color-blind public policy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 25-39. doi:10.1177/0146167215611637
CorntasselJ.HolderC. (2008). Who’s sorry now? Government apologies, truth commissions, and Indigenous self-determination in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru. Human Rights Review, 9, 465-489.
18.
CruzB. C. (1994). Stereotypes of Latin Americans perpetuated in secondary school history textbooks. Latino Studies Journal, 1, 51-67.
19.
DoosjeB.BranscombeN. R.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872-886.
20.
EaglyA. H.DiekmanA. B.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.KoenigA. M. (2004). Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 796-816.
21.
EaglyA. H.KiteM. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451-462.
22.
FiskeS. T.BerdahlJ. (2007). Social power. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 678-692). New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
GauselN.LeachC. W.VignolesV. L.BrownR. (2012). Defend or repair? Explaining responses to in-group moral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 941-960.
24.
GovierT.VerwoerdW. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of apology. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33, 67-82.
25.
HalabiS.DovidioJ. F.NadlerA. (2018). When intergroup apology is not enough: Seeking help and reactions to receiving help among members of low status groups: Intergroup apology and helping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 118-133. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2309
26.
HalloranM. J. (2007). Indigenous reconciliation in Australia: Do values, identity and collective guilt matter?Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(1), 1-18. doi:10.1002/casp.876
27.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.. . . StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003-1028. doi:10.1037/pspi0000033
28.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.PrattoF.LevinS.ThomsenL.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 583-606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765
29.
HornseyM. J.SchumannK.BainP. G.BlumenS.ChenS. X.GómezÁ.. . . WohlM. J. A. (2017). Conservatives are more reluctant to give and receive apologies than liberals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 827-835. doi:10.1177/1948550617691096
30.
HowellA. J.DopkoR. L.TurowskiJ. B.BuroK. (2011). The disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 509-514. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.009
31.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
JostJ. T.ThompsonE. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901-931. doi:10.1037/pspp0000048
37.
KteilyN.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mere effect’?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 208-214. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009
38.
KuglerM. B.CooperJ.NosekB. A. (2010). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 117-155. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5
39.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L. W.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.. . . SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144-165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
40.
LeidnerB.CastanoE.ZaiserE.Giner-SorollaR. (2010). Ingroup glorification, moral disengagement, and justice in the context of collective violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1115-1129. doi:10.1177/0146167210376391
41.
LevinS.SidaniusJ. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation?Political Psychology, 20, 99-126. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00138
42.
LevinasE. (1969). Totality and infinity (LingisA. Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
43.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). 8 Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398. doi:10.1080/19416520802211628
44.
MarableM. (2015). How capitalism underdeveloped black America: Problems in race, political economy, and society. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
45.
McGartyC.PedersenA.Wayne LeachC.MansellT.WallerJ.BliucA.-M. (2005). Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 659-680.
46.
MurphyJ. G.HamptonJ. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673-690.
49.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM.HedrickK. (2013). Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 22-31. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1901
50.
O’MalleyM. N.GreenbergJ. (1983). Sex differences in restoring justice: The down payment effect. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 174-185.
51.
PeetersB. (2004). Tall poppies and egalitarianism in Australian discourse: From key word to cultural value. English World-Wide, 25(1), 1-25.
52.
PeñaY.SidaniusJ. (2002). US patriotism and ideologies of group dominance: A tale of asymmetry. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 782-790.
PrattoF.CidamA.StewartA. L.ZeineddineF. B.ArandaM.AielloA.. . . HenkelK. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587-599.
55.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772
56.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
57.
RandallS. J. (2003). The tragedy of American diplomacy revisited: U.S. relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin American Research Review, 38, 167-179. doi:10.1353/lar.2003.0023
58.
RotellaK. N.RichesonJ. A.McAdamsD. P. (2015). Groups’ search for meaning: Redemption on the path to intergroup reconciliation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 696-715. doi:10.1177/1368430215570501
59.
SchumannK. (2014). An affirmed self and a better apology: The effect of self-affirmation on transgressors’ responses to victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 89-96.
60.
SchwartzS. H.BilskyW. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550
61.
SearsD. O.HaleyH.HenryP. J. (2008). Cultural diversity and sociopolitical attitudes at college entry. In SidaniusJ.LevinS.van LaarC.SearsD. O. (Eds.), The diversity challenge (pp. 65-99). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
62.
ShnabelN.HalabiS.SimanTov-NachlieliI. (2015). Group apology under unstable status relations: Perceptions of insincerity hinder reconciliation and forgiveness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 716-725. doi:10.1177/1368430214546069
63.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
64.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021-1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
65.
SibleyC. G.RobertsonA.KirkwoodS. (2005). Pakeha attitudes toward the symbolic and resource-specific aspects of bicultural policy in New Zealand: The legitimizing role of collective guilt for historical injustices. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 171-180.
66.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1993). Racism and support of free-market capitalism: A cross-cultural analysis. Political Psychology, 14, 381-401. doi:10.2307/3791704
67.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
SmeedingT. M. (2005). Public policy, economic inequality, and poverty: The United States in comparative perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 86(s1), 955-983.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
72.
ThompsonE. (1994). Fair enough: Egalitarianism in Australia. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
73.
ThompsonJ. (2008). Apology, justice, and respect: A critical defense of political apology. In GibneyM.Howard-HassmannR.CoicaudJ.-M.SteinerN. (Eds.), The age of apology: Facing up to the past (pp. 31-44). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
74.
WenzelM.WoodyattL.HedrickK. (2012). No genuine self-forgiveness without accepting responsibility: Value reaffirmation as a key to maintaining positive self-regard. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 617-627. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1873
75.
WesternB. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
76.
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.
77.
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.
78.
ZaiserE.Giner-SorollaR. (2013). Saying sorry: Shifting obligation after conciliatory acts satisfies perpetrator group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 585-604. doi:10.1037/a0033296
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.
