According to the needs-based model of reconciliation, transgressions threaten victims’ sense of agency and perpetrators’ moral image. Consequently, victims and perpetrators experience heightened needs for empowerment and acceptance, respectively. Exchange interactions (e.g., expressions of apologies and forgiveness) through which victims and perpetrators satisfy each other’s needs facilitate reconciliation. We present research that has supported the model in both interpersonal and intergroup contexts. We then extend the model to “dual” conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each other and compete over the victim status, and to intergroup contexts of structural inequality. Finally, we discuss need satisfaction outside the victim-perpetrator dyad as an intriguing avenue for future research.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (Eds.). (2013). The Big Two in social judgment and behavior [Special issue]. Social Psychology, 44(2). A special issue about the two fundamental content dimensions that underlie judgment of social targets, which integrates highly diverse lines of research in social psychology and explains the rationale for subsuming components that had been shown to be distinct (e.g., competence vs. dominance; morality vs. sociability) under two overarching categories.
2.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (in press). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology. An article that provides a comprehensive review of the research conducted within the needs-based model’s framework, including in-depth discussions of issues that could not be addressed in this short article, such as the seeming discrepancy between the needs-based model’s logic and empirical findings pointing to the ineffectiveness of group apologies.
3.
TavuchisN. (1991). (See References). A seminal analysis of the sociology of apology and forgiveness drawing from literature in sociology, philosophy, linguistics, philology, psychology, anthropology, law, and religious studies.
4.
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. A social-psychological analysis of public apologies, the pros and cons of using them, and strategies that may bolster their effectiveness.
5.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2013). The Big Two in social judgment and behavior [Editorial]. Social Psychology, 44, 61–62.
6.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.
7.
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.
8.
BaumeisterR. F. (1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
9.
BergsiekerH. B.SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264.
10.
de WaalF. B. M. (2000). Primates: A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science, 289, 586–600.
11.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth, then competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.
12.
FrijdaN. H. (1994). Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In EkmanP.DavidsonR. J. (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 59–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
GaltungJ. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 167–191.
14.
Gobodo-MadikizelaP. (2008). Transforming trauma in the aftermath of gross human rights abuses: Making public spaces intimate through the South African truth and reconciliation commission. In NadlerA.MalloyT.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation (pp. 57–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
HarthN. S.ShnabelN. (2015). Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict-party. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 676–695. doi:10.1177/1368430215583151
16.
IyerA.LeachC. W. (2010). Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust inequality: The role of group-based emotions. In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), New directions in the psychology of helping: Group-level perspectives on motivations, consequences, and interventions (pp. 337–353). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
17.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.
18.
MazziottaA.FeuchteF.GauselN.NadlerA. (2014). Does remembering past ingroup perpetration promote postwar cross-group contact? Insights from a field experiment in Liberia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 43–52.
19.
McCulloughM. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20.
MummendeyA.KesslerT.KlinkA.MielkeR. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245.
21.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2008). Instrumental and socio-emotional paths to intergroup reconciliation: And the need based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In NadlerA.MalloyT.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
NoorM.ShnabelN.HalabiS.NadlerA. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 351–374.
23.
ShnabelN.HalabiS.NoorM. (2013). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through re-categorization into a common victim or perpetrator identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 867–877.
24.
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.
25.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.DovidioJ. F. (2014). Beyond need satisfaction: Empowering and accepting messages from third parties ineffectively restore trust and consequent reconciliation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 126–140.
26.
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.
27.
ShnabelN.UllrichJ.NadlerA.DovidioJ. F.AydinA. L. (2013). Warm or competent? Improving intergroup relations by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 482–492.
28.
SiemB.von OettingenM.MummendeyA.NadlerA. (2013). When status differences are illegitimate, groups’ needs diverge: Testing the needs-based model of reconciliation in contexts of status inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 137–148.
29.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN. (2014). Feeling both victim and perpetrator: Investigating duality within the needs-based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 301–314.
30.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN.AydinA. L.UllrichJ. (2015). Agents of morality: Affirming conflicting groups’ agency promotes pro-sociality towards the conflicting outgroup. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Towards a social psychological analysis of politicized collective identity: Conceptualization, antecedents, and consequences. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.
32.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
WoodyattL.WenzelM. (2014). A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat to moral identity as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 125–135.
