Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Transgressions and injustice are an inevitable part of social life, both in interactions between individuals and between groups. But whereas interpersonal conflict between individuals typically impacts only few, intergroup conflict between groups can be harmful to many – as is illustrated by disputes between nations, political parties, and social groups. For this reason, it is crucial to understand how such transgressions can be restored. In interpersonal settings, there is considerable evidence that apologies can restore transgressions and enable victims and perpetrators to reconcile. But how does their remedial potential translate to disputes between groups? This question is not well understood. Indeed, victim groups frequently demand apologies from groups that wronged them. It is unknown, however, to what extent the remedial effectiveness of apologies in interpersonal disputes conflicts may translate to disputes conflicts between groups. The present research illuminates this question. In an experimental study (N = 272), we compared the effectiveness of apologies for restoring trust in after disputes transgressions between individuals or groups. We examined whether apologies restore trust as effectively in intergroup contexts as in interpersonal contexts. Moreover, we investigated how the remedial effectiveness of apologies depends on whether they are expressed in terms of primary (e.g., sadness and anger) or secondary emotions (e.g., guilt and disappointment). Method – Data were collected using a 2 (interaction type: interpersonal vs. intergroup) × 3 (response type: no apology vs. apology with primary emotions vs. apology with secondary emotions) between-subjects design. In the context of a social dilemma task, individuals or groups were wronged by the opposing individual or group. We measured to what extent trust in the other player (individual or group) was restored by the provision of either an apology with primary emotions or an apology with secondary emotions (compared to no apology). To test our predictions, we employed a mixed design, in which trust was measured at three moments (before the transgression, after the transgression, and after receiving an apology/no apology). Results – Results revealed that, in both in interpersonal and intergroup contexts, apologies significantly increased trust. However, their remedial impact was greater in interpersonal interactions (where they could fully restore trust to pre-transgression the levels prior to the transgressions) than in intergroup interactions (where they failed to fully restore trust). Furthermore, results indicated that the effectiveness of apology was shaped by its emotional content. Specifically, in disputes between individuals, only apologies with secondary emotions fully restored trust. Conversely, in disputes between groups, neither primary nor secondary emotions fully restored trust. This was explained by greater skepticism of apologies in intergroup contexts, particularly of those with secondary emotions. Discussion − The present findings suggest that apologies are less effective at restoring disputes in intergroup than interpersonal relations. Whereas apologies significantly increased trust in both contexts, apologies did not restore fully trust between groups following a transgression. This These findings underlines that intergroup interactions are more competitive and distrusting than interpersonal interactions between individuals, and suggests that more extensive remedies may be required to reduce intergroup tensions.