Iyer and Blatz @ 2010 UMass Conflict Conference

Slide 1: 

1 Apology and Reparation Aarti Iyer University of Queensland Craig Blatz Grant MacEwan University Intergroup Conflict: Bridging Social Psychology & Peace PerspectivesJune 18 - 20, 2010 • University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Slide 2: 

2 intergroup conflict intergroup peace {caused harm} {redressed harm} apology &reparation illegitimacy of harm responsibility for harm power imbalance(material and moral) humility & forgiveness renewed group identities power balance(material and moral) {beyond harm} perpetrator vs. victim groups material interests of group identity of group values & ideology group & societal processes government representatives legal precedents: identity and material interests public opinion (re-election…) values & ideology

Slide 3: 

3 perpetrator group’s responses... ...after an apology has been offered: support for the apology prejudice towards victim group support for government policies re: victim group  simple illustration of the complexity involved... focus of this talk

Slide 4: 

4 some predict decreased support after apology (backlash) threat to group’s moral identity threat to group’s material interest others predict increased support after apology upholding moral values & ideology justifying actions of government (Kay, Jost, et al., 2007) people value their own side’s offer in negotiations… (Cohen, 2003; Curhan, Neale, & Ross, 2004) …in part to maintain psychological balance (Heider, 1958)  empirical evidence? perpetrator group’s support for apology

Slide 5: 

5 Australian Stolen Generation (1910  1970) - government policy to “civilize” biracial Indigenous children - 10 to 30% of Indigenous children (up to 50,000) forcibly placed in White foster homes or Christian boarding houses Canadian Residential Schools (1800’s  1996) - government policy to “aggressively assimilate” native children - 150,000 Inuit, First Nation, and Métis children forcibly placed in Christian boarding schools harm was done - trauma of familial separation - trauma of cultural discontinuity (Chandler & Proulx, 2008) - in some cases, neglect and abuse in new homes / schools 2008: federal apologies to both groups study 1: background

Slide 6: 

6 study 1: results - polling data % support for apology * *

Slide 7: 

7 lingering question  how do we know that the increased support was due to the apology per se? respondents to pre-apology polls had no idea what the apology would look like experimental study with more control...

Slide 8: 

8 study 2: method 238 undergraduate students at urban Canadian university scenario: Canadian Government complicit in doping scandal involving Olympic speed skaters the Netherlands lost medals accordingly all participants read text for a Canadian Gov’t apology  manipulation: apology actually provided or not DV: positive evaluation of apology

Slide 9: 

study 2: results 9 *

Slide 10: 

10 Studies 1 & 2 suggest that perpetrator groups are more open to intergroup peace after an apology is made BUT other research has shown evidence of prejudice toward victim groups:increased dehumanization of outgroup when victimized by the ingroup (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006)  efforts to defend ingroup’s identity and material interests what is the response to the victim group when an apology has been made? is this response affected by the way in which the apology frames / explains the conflict? more lingering questions

Slide 11: 

11 perpetrator groups may express prejudice towards victim groups with distinct emotions harm-doing can be framed in different ways, with emphasis placed on distinct explanations for the transgression appraisal theories (Scherer, Schorr, & Johnston, 2002): people’s interpretations of events can elicit distinct emotions clear ingroup wrong-doing = direct threat to ingroup identity and interests (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007) justification / excusing of harm-doing = victim blame, assertion of ingroup superiority (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2002) emotional responses to victim group anger: victim group poses obstacle to ingroup’s desired outcome contempt: victims are incompetent disgust: victims represent unpalatable values / character

Slide 12: 

12 study 3: method study conducted 3 months after Australian federal apology to Stolen Generation 82 undergraduate students at urban Australian university all self-identified as non-Indigenous p’s read excerpts from apology speech by Prime Minister or Opposition Leader  manipulated explanation: racism or harsh conditions measures: support for apology emotions toward victim group: anger, disgust, contempt support for three government policies: punitive, disengagement, infantalizing

Slide 13: 

13 explanation of harm-doing I Prime Minister Kevin Rudd — clear racism: “...Children were forcibly taken from their families; [and] this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state...For some in administrative authority, the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with the ‘problem of the Aboriginal population.’ study 3: materials direct threat to ingroup identity & interests

Slide 14: 

14 explanation of harm-doing II Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson — harsh conditions: “We cannot, from the comfort of the 21st century, begin to imagine what they overcame—Indigenous and non-Indigenous—to give us what we have and make us who we are. We do know, though, that language, disease, ignorance, good intentions, basic human prejudices, and a cultural and technological chasm combined to deliver a harshness exceeded only by the land over which each sought to prevail.” study 3: materials …there were harsh conditions for both groups to overcomeIMPLICATION: the ingroup overcame hardships more effectively, suggesting superior values and character there was racism, but it was understandable, as…

Slide 15: 

15 study 3: results - support for apology

Slide 16: 

study 3: results - felt emotion 16 * * *

Slide 17: 

17 study 3: results - support for policies anger disgust contempt justification manipulation 0 = racism support forpunitive policy support fordisengagement policy support forinfantilizing policy .52* .60* .55* .03 .12 .24+ .14 .07 .44* .30* .60* .29* .32* .64* .35* -.08 .38 * -.34* model fit: c2 (3 d.f.) = 1.093, p = .78, CFI = .99, IFI = .96, GFI = .98, Std. RMR = .04, RMSEA = .05

Slide 18: 

18 mixed evidence for utility of apology on the road to peace: Studies 1 & 2 suggest that an apology paves the way for perpetrator groups to acknowledge illegitimate harm Study 3 indicates that the way the apology is framed can increase prejudice toward members of victim group  whether the group takes responsibility for the transgression or not possible explanations: salient threats (e.g. in Australian apology speeches) more easily elicit prejudice? abstract versus concrete responses to conflict? implications for efforts at redress after conflict... so what do we know?

Slide 19: 

19 intergroup conflict intergroup peace {caused harm} {redressed harm} apology &reparation illegitimacy of harm responsibility for harm power imbalance(material and moral) humility & forgiveness renewed group identities power balance(material and moral) {beyond harm} perpetrator vs. victim groups material interests of group identity of group values & ideology group & societal processes government representatives legal precedents: identity and material interests public opinion (re-election…) values & ideology