Global perceptions of state apologies for human rights violations.

Abstract

State apologies for human rights violations are often seen as a key mechanism in reconciliation processes. Nevertheless, they are often contested as well and have not been embraced equally by countries around the world. This raises questions about their universal value and potential to address or redress past harmdoing by countries. In a study across 33 countries (n = 11,023), we found that people around the world consider apologies by states for human rights violations to be reasonably important but tend to be less supportive of the idea that their own country should apologize for past harmdoing. We found that this discrepancy was amplified in countries with stronger honour norms and a stronger collective sense of victim- rather than perpetratorhood. Moving beyond the decontextualized approach that has prevailed in previous psychological research on this topic, our findings show that people's attitudes towards apologies by their country do not exist in a cultural and social vacuum but depend on the extent to which the broader context affords a critical reflection on past harmdoing. As such, they help explain why some countries have been reluctant to offer apologies, and why such gestures may also be more controversial in some contexts than in others.