The stereotype content model provides a framework for understanding contextual and relational factors that may explain why some intergroup apologies are ineffective. Using actual and fictional scenarios, we examined whether the apology–forgiveness relationship and the apology–remorse relationship were dependent on the victim-group members’ perceived warmth of the offending group. Studies 1 (N = 101) and 2 (N = 109) demonstrated that the perceived warmth of the offending group moderated the influence of apology on forgiveness. The interaction effect between apology and forgiveness and that between apology and perceived remorse were qualified in three-way interactions in Studies 3 (N = 235) and 4 (N = 586). The warmth-by-apology interaction was detectable among those who were highly offended by the incident. In all four experiments, we found an indirect effect of perceived warmth on forgiveness through perceived remorse. The perceived lack of warmth associated with offending groups may help explain the muted effectiveness of intergroup apologies.
AwaleA.ChanC. S.HoG. T. (2019). The influence of perceived warmth and competence on realistic threat and willingness for intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 857–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2553
2.
BattistellaE. L. (2014). Sorry about that: The language of public apology. Oxford University Press.
BerndsenM.HornseyM.WohlM. (2015). The impact of a victim-focused apology on forgiveness in an intergroup context. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 726–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215586275
BombayA.MathesonK.AnismanH. (2013). Expectations among Aboriginal peoples in Canada regarding the potential impacts of a government apology. Political Psychology, 34(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.11111/pops/12029
7.
BrooksR. L. (1999). When sorry isn’t enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for human justice. New York University Press.
8.
BroseL. A.RyeM. S.Lutz-ZoisC.RossS. R. (2005). Forgiveness and personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.001
9.
BrownR. P.WohlM. J.ExlineJ. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1406–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208321538
10.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
11.
de GrieffP. (2008). The role of apologies in national reconciliation processes: On making trustworthy institutions trusted. In GibneyM.Howard-HasmannR. E.CoicaudJ.-M.SteinerN. (Eds.), The age of apology: Facing up to the past (pp. 120–134). University of Pennsylvania Press.
DuranteF.VolpatoC.FiskeS. T. (2010). Using the stereotype content model to examine group depictions in Fascism: An archival approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.637
15.
FinchamF. D.JacksonH.BeachS. R. (2005). Transgression severity and forgiveness: Different moderators for objective and subjective severity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(6), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.860
16.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
17.
FiskeS. T.HarrisL. T.CuddyA. J. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306(5701), 1482–1483.
18.
HarrisL. T.FiskeS. T. (2009). Social neuroscience evidence for dehumanised perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 192–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280902954988
HornseyM. J.WohlM. J. (2013). We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.822206
21.
HornseyM. J.WohlM. J. A.HarrisE. A.OkimotoT. G.ThaiM.WenzelM. (2019). Embodied remorse: Physical displays of remorse increase positive responses to public apologies, but have negligible effects on forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000208
22.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899
23.
KervynN.FiskeS. T.YzerbytV. Y. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978
KirchhoffJ.Čehajić-ClancyS. (2014). Intergroup apologies: Does it matter what they say? Experimental analyses. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(4), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000064
26.
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(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
LeonardD. J.MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1198–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.002
29.
LeyensJ-Ph.DemoulinS.VaesJ.GauntR.PaladinoP. M. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x
30.
LiM.LeidnerB.CastanoE. (2014). Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of dehumanization: Integrating two senses of humanness, mind perception theory, and stereotype content model. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.4
31.
McCulloughM. E.FinchamF. D.TsangJ. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
32.
McLernonF.CairnsE.HewstoneM.SmithR. (2004). The development of intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 60(3), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00373.x
33.
NadlerA. (2012). Intergroup reconciliation: Definitions, processes, and future directions. In TroppL. R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 291–309). Oxford University Press.
34.
NadlerA.LiviatanI. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276431
35.
NoorM.James BrownR.PrenticeG. (2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X238751
36.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.008
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(4), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311283
39.
PhilpotC. R.HornseyM. J. (2011). Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.741
van TongerenD. R.BurnetteJ. L.O’BoyleE.WorthingtonE. L.Jr.ForsythD. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of intergroup forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.844268
WohlM. J.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(2), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.288
44.
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(5), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215576721
45.
WohlM. J.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(2), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024838
46.
WohlM. J.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(5), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12017
47.
WojciszkeB.BazinskaR.JaworskiM. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412001
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.
