Third parties, particularly if neutral, have been found to promote instrumental conflict resolution. Using the needs-based model’s theoretical framework, we investigated whether third parties can also promote socioemotional reconciliation. Study 1 (N = 124) revealed that in the context of fraud between universities, conciliatory messages from either the other conflict party or a third party sharing common identity with it increased group members’ willingness to reconcile more than equivalent messages from a neutral third party. Replicating and extending this pattern, Study 2 (N = 177) exposed Israeli Jewish participants to texts which reminded them of historical transgressions conducted by Palestinians or against them. We found that compared to a control condition, messages supposedly conveyed by either Palestinians or Jordanians, but not by the UN, increased Israeli Jews’ willingness to reconcile with Palestinians. These effects were mediated by the extent to which the official conveying these messages was perceived as representing the other conflict party.
AllportG. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
2.
AradS.CarnevaleP. J. (1994). Partisanship effects in judgments of fairness and trust in third parties in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 423–451. doi:10.1177/0022002794038003004
3.
Bar-TalD. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351–365. doi:10.1111/0162–895X.00192
4.
BenzimanY. (2009). Forgive and not forget: The ethics of forgiveness. Jerusalem, Israel: Van Leer. [in Hebrew]
5.
BlackD.BaumgartnerM. P. (1983). Toward a theory of the third party. In BoyumK. O.MatherL. (Eds.), Empirical theories about courts (pp. 84–114). New York, NY: Longman.
6.
BlatzC. W.PhilpotC. (2010). On the outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 995–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x
7.
BrewerM. (2000). Superodinate goals versus superordinate identity as bases of intergroup cooperation. In CapozzaD.BrownR. (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 117–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BrownR.EllerA.LeedsS.StaceK. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692–703. doi:10.1002/ejsp.384
9.
BrownR.VivianJ.HewstoneM. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 741–764. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099–0992(199908/09) 29:5/6<741::AID-EJSP972>3.0.CO;2–8
10.
CarnevaleP. J.AradS. (1996). Bias and impartiality in international mediation. In BercovitchJ. (Ed.), Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation (pp. 39–53). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
11.
CarnevaleP. J.PruittD. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 531–582. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002531
12.
ConlonD. E.RossW. H. (1993). The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 280–290. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.280
13.
DovidioJ. FGaertnerS. L.LouxS. (2000). Subjective experiences and intergroup relations: The role of positive affect. In BlessH.ForgasJ. (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective states in social cognition and behavior (pp. 340–371). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
14.
FisherR. J. (1983). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup conflict resolution: A review of studies. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27, 301–334. doi:10.1177/0022002783027002005
15.
FisherR.UryW. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
16.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
17.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
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. E.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 57–75). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
HarthN. S.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2011). Emotional responses to rejection of gestures of intergroup reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 815–829. doi:10.1037/pac0000064
20.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028
21.
KelmanH. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In NadlerA.MalloyT.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
KnowlesW. (1958). Mediation and the psychology of small groups. Law Review, 9, 780–784.
23.
KolbD. M. (1987). Who are organizational third parties and what do they do? In BazermanM. H.LewickiR. J.SheppardB. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 207–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
24.
KransoJ. E. (2004). The United Nations: Confronting the challenge of a global society. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
25.
McCulloughM. E.WorthingtonE. L.JrRachalK. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.75.6.1586
26.
MummendeyA.WenzelM. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
27.
NadlerA.LiviatanI. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459–470. doi:10.1177/0146167205276431
28.
NadlerA.MalloyT. E.FisherJ. D. (2008). Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: The instrumental and socio-emotional paths and the need-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In NadlerA.MalloyT. E.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In HegtvedtK. A.Clay-WarnerJ. (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Justice (Vol. 25, pp. 291–326). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
31.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
32.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.751
33.
RossL. (1995). Reactive devaluation in negotiation and conflict resolution. In ArrowK. J.MnookinR. H.RossL.TverskyA.WilsonR. B. (Eds.), Barriers to conflict resolution (pp. 26–42). New York, NY: Norton.
34.
RubinJ. Z. (1980). Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalizations. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 379–391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.379
35.
RubinJ. Z.PruittD. G.KimS. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). New York, UK: McGraw-Hill.
36.
SchimmackU. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. doi:10.1037/a0029487
37.
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:10.1027/1864–9335/a000148
38.
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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2002
39.
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
40.
ShnabelN.NoorM. (2012). Competitive victimhood among Jewish and Palestinian Israelis reflects differential threats to their identities: The perspective of the needs-based model. In JonasK. J.MortonT. (Eds.), Restoring civil societies: The psychology of intervention and engagement following crisis (pp. 192–207). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
41.
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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1975
42.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN. (2014). Feeling both victim and perpetrator: Investigating duality within the needs-based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 301–314. doi10.1177/0146167213510746
43.
StaubE. (2008). Promoting reconciliation after genocide and mass killing in Rwanda and other post-conflict settings. In NadlerA.MalloyT. E.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
StulbergJ. B. (1987). Taking charge: Managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Heath.
45.
SubašicE.ReynoldsK. (2009). Beyond “practical” reconciliation: Intergroup inequality and the meaning of non-indigenous identity. Political Psychology, 30, 243–267. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00690.x
46.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
47.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
TeixeiraC. P.DemoulinS.YzerbytV. (2011). Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 228–234. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1909
49.
TroppL. R.MallettR. K. (2011). Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations. Washington, DC: APA.
50.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
51.
VolkanV. D. (1985). The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach. Political Psychology, 6, 219–247. doi:10.2307/3790902
52.
WeltonG. L.PruittD. G. (1987). The mediation process: The effects of mediator bias and disputant power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 123–133. doi:10.1177/0146167287131012
53.
WilderD. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 177–194. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(84)90019-2
54.
WohlM. J. A.BranscombeN. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 288–303. doi:10.1037/pac0000064
55.
YoungO. R. (1967). The intermediaries: Third parties in international crises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
