Repairing Trust Between Individuals and Groups: The Effectiveness of Apologies in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts

Christopher P Reinders Folmer,Jonas De Keersmaecker,Paul A M Van Lange,Tessa Haesevoets,Tim Wildschut,Jasper Van Assche

doi:10.5334/irsp.479

Abstract

Transgressions and injustice are an inevitable part of social life, both in interactions between individuals and between groups. But whereas conflict between individuals typically impacts only few, 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 contexts, there is considerable evidence that apologies can restore transgressions and enable victims and perpetrators to reconcile. It is unknown, however, to what extent their remedial effectiveness may translate to conflicts between groups. The present research illuminates this question. In an experimental study (<em>N</em> = 272), we compared the effectiveness of apologies for restoring trust after transgressions between individuals or groups. Results revealed that both in interpersonal and intergroup contexts, apologies significantly increased trust. However, their impact was greater in interpersonal interactions (where they fully restored trust to its pre-transgression level) than in intergroup interactions (where they failed to fully restore trust). Furthermore, the effectiveness of apologies was shaped by their emotional content. In disputes between individuals, only apologies with secondary emotions fully restored trust. Conversely, in disputes between groups, neither apologies with primary emotions nor those with secondary emotions fully restored trust. This was explained by greater skepticism of apologies in intergroup contexts, particularly of apologies with secondary emotions. These findings underline that intergroup interactions are more competitive and distrusting than interpersonal interactions, and suggest that more extensive remedies may be required to reduce intergroup tensions.

Highlights

Transgressions and injustice are an inevitable part of social life, both in interactions between individuals and between groups
Our analyses focused on the following contrasts: (1) a contrast comparing the no apology condition to both apology conditions, and (2) contrasts comparing (i) the no apology condition to apologies with primary emotions, (ii) the no apology condition to apologies with secondary emotions, and (iii) apologies with primary emotions to apologies with secondary emotions
Mediation Analyses The results suggest that apologies evoked less trust, and lower perceived sincerity in intergroup interactions than in interpersonal interactions

Summary

Introduction

Transgressions and injustice are an inevitable part of social life, both in interactions between individuals and between groups. A considerable body of research demonstrates that in interpersonal relations, apologies are an effective means of restoring trust violations (for a meta-analysis, see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010) By apologizing for their transgressions, individuals can distance themselves from their actions, reaffirm the norms that were broken, and humble themselves before the victim, thereby enabling them to reconcile (Tavuchis, 1991). In context of historical wrongdoings, victim groups tend to respond skeptically to apologies from perpetrator groups (for a review, see Hornsey & Wohl, 2013) Taken together, it is not clear whether the remedial potential of apologies in interpersonal contexts translates to intergroup relations. We investigated if (and how) the remedial effectiveness of apologies in these contexts depends on whether they are expressed in terms of primary (e.g., sadness and anger) or secondary (e.g., guilt and disappointment) emotions

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion