Tara Harvey, 2017
Since 2013, a Royal Commission has heard harrowing evidence of historical child sexual abuse in Australian institutions, causing victim support groups to demand a national apology. However, Australia’s Police Commissioners want to wait until the final report is released, to shape their apology for the best effect (Wright & Sparkes, 2017).
However, crafting a successful historical apology is no easy feat. They occur decades after the offence, and often on behalf of transgressors who are dead. So are they effective, and if so, what makes a successful mea culpa?
Public intergroup apologies (PIAs) are so common today that many scholars argue we are living in the age of apology (Kirchhoff & Čehajić-Clancy, 2014). Hornsey and Wohl (2013) attribute this surge to increased political focus on reconciliation, moral accountability and group equality.
The effects of a PIA are multifaceted, ranging from reinstating lost trust in societal institutions (Katz et al., 2008), to improving reconciliation efforts by making the transgressor publicly admit their wrongdoings (Tavuchis as cited in Blatz & Philpot, 2010).
Interestingly, forgiveness is not always a common outcome. In post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina, researchers examined how apologies with different components would be more or less effective in redressing historical transgressions. While a particular combination of components increased the likelihood of the apology being accepted, it did not have an effect on intergroup forgiveness (Kirchhoff & Čehajić-Clancy, 2014). Similarly, a study by Philpot and Hornsey (2008) found research participants who read scenarios of wrongdoings against other Australians were more satisfied after seeing an apology, but it didn’t promote forgiveness.
So what exactly can an apology achieve? Along with promoting acceptance, restoring faith is another key effect. Katz et al. (2008) questioned African Americans who were aware of the infamous Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis, a scandalous medical experiment targeting African American men. Participants who knew about the Government’s apology were found to be more trusting of medical research, than those who did not. While some transgressions are unforgivable, restoring faith in institutions is possible.
Additionally, PIAs can change the way victims see the offender. Blatz, Day, and Schryer’s (2014) experiment found Canadian participants became more accepting of Dutch people after the Dutch Government issued an apology for a fabricated Olympic doping scandal involving Dutch athletes.
But to complicate the matter, how a victim initially views their transgressor can affect the apology. Bennett and Earwaker (1994) investigated whether an offender’s level of perceived responsibility can affect the chances of a victim accepting their apology and if the seriousness of the event has a similar effect. Higher levels of offender responsibility and event severity both caused subjects to be more likely to reject the apology. Crucially, however, while significant effects were uncovered, subjects were unlikely to reject the apology completely.
The community’s connection to victims also effects the wider acceptance of a PIA. As social identity theory explains, people identify themselves within groups, and when a member of that group is wronged, others can react emotionally (Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Public apologies are not just for victims, and the wider community can be tough to win over. Brown, Wohl, and Exline (2008) discovered apologies are significantly less effective for people who identify highly with the victim group. In the case of police apologising for uninvestigated abuse, they are less likely to convince those who feel a strong connection to those who suffered.
An apology’s success is not only tied to how victims view their transgressors, or how people view victims; content is also crucial. Kirchhoff and Čehajić-Clancy (2014) found that an apology was successful when it contained four key components. These were: naming the transgression, making an apology, admitting a violation of norms and addressing the subsequent suffering. The final component was especially important. Understandably, researchers argue the importance of both sides of the conflict working in conjunction to develop the public apology, to ensure key components are effective (Kirchhoff & Čehajić- Clancy, 2014).
Timing is another key factor, with initial research suggesting late apologies can be beneficial. Frantz and Bennigson (2005) compared a group of subjects who received an immediate apology following a transgression with a group who were apologised to a day later. They found the group who had 24 hours to voice their grievances and feel heard were significantly more satisfied with the apology. Allowing time to pass gives victims a chance to express themselves and ‘ripen’ to an apology. However, 24 hours cannot be compared to decades of delay. There could be a U-shaped function regarding timing, in that very early and very late apologies may be meaningless (Frantz & Bennigson, 2004).
It is clear that the Police Commissioner’s decision to wait and craft an ‘effective’ apology for child abuse victims is wise. It is proven that PIAs can bring about a renewed faith in institutions and acceptance, paving the way for reconciliation and healing. The Royal Commission has enabled victims to feel heard, ripening them for an apology, and it should be developed in conjunction with victim support groups for maximum effectiveness. While it may be too little, too late for forgiveness, a national apology will express responsibility and remorse not only to the victims but to a nation horrified by revelations of decades of institutional abuse.
References
Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(4), 457.Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/199787512?
accountid=17227
Blatz, C. W., Day, M. V., & Schryer, E. (2014). Official public apology effects on victim group members’ evaluations of the perpetrator group. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 46(3),337-345. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031729
Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the Outcomes of Intergroup Apologies: A Review.Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 995-1007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x
Brown, R. P., Wohl, M. J. A., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34(10), 1406-1419. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208321538
Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201-207.Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/214789469?accountid=17227
Hornsey, M. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2013). We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 1-31.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.822206
Katz, R., Kegeles, S., Kressin, N., Green, B., James, S., Wang, M., … Claudio, C. (2008).Awareness of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the US presidential apology and their influence on minority participation in biomedical research. American Journal Of Public Health, 98(6), 1137-1142. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.100131
Kirchhoff, J., & Čehajić-Clancy, S. (2014). Intergroup apologies: Does it matter what they say? experimental analyses. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(4),430-451. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000064
Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34(4), 474. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/213988201?accountid=17227
Wright, P., & Sparkes, D. (2017, January 17). Police commissioners planning to apologise tovictims of institutional child sex abuse. ABC Radio Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. The BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 42, 533-549. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/219198732?accountid=17227
Recent Comments