Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socioemotional processes and the needs-based model

Abstract

We discuss the complexity of the concept of intergroup reconciliation, offer our definition of it, and identify instrumental and socio-emotional processes as distinct processes that facilitate reconciliation. We then present the needs-based model, according to which conflicts threaten victims' sense of agency and perpetrators' moral image, and social exchange interactions that restore victims' and perpetrators' impaired identities promote reconciliation. We review empirical evidence supporting the model and present extensions of it to ( a) contexts of structural inequality, (b) "dual" conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each other, and (c) contexts in which the restoration of positive identities is external to the victim-perpetrator dyad (e.g., third-parties' interventions). Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pers20
Download by: [Tel Aviv University] Date: 03 August 2017, At: 04:12
European Review of Social Psychology
ISSN: 1046-3283 (Print) 1479-277X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pers20
Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-
emotional processes and the needs-based model
Arie Nadler & Nurit Shnabel
To cite this article: Arie Nadler & Nurit Shnabel (2015) Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and
socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model, European Review of Social Psychology,
26:1, 93-125, DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
Published online: 13 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 550
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and
socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model
Arie Nadler and Nurit Shnabel
School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel
(Received 5 October 2014; accepted 30 June 2015)
We discuss the complexity of the concept of intergroup reconciliation, offer our
definition of it, and identify instrumental and socio-emotional processes as distinct
processes that facilitate reconciliation. We then present the needs-based model,
according to which conflicts threaten victims’sense of agency and perpetrators’
moral image, and social exchange interactions that restore victims’and perpetra-
tors’impaired identities promote reconciliation. We review empirical evidence
supporting the model and present extensions of it to (a) contexts of structural
inequality, (b) “dual”conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each
other, and (c) contexts in which the restoration of positive identities is external to
the victim–perpetrator dyad (e.g., third-parties’interventions). Theoretical and
practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.
Keywords: The needs-based model; Intergroup reconciliation; Apology;
Forgiveness; Competitive victimhood; Perpetrators; Victims.
In recent years there has been a growing realisation of the importance of
removing psychological barriers that forestall adversaries on the way to ending
conflicts. One manifestation of this realisation is the changing zeitgeist regarding
the way post-conflict societies work to smooth the transition from oppression and
conflict to peaceful coexistence. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs),
in South Africa and elsewhere (e.g., Avruch & Vejerano, 2002), and public
apologies by political leaders to a formerly victimised group (Blatz, Schumann,
& Ross, 2009; Gibney, Howard-Hassmann, Coicaud, & Steiner, 2008) are
examples of contemporary efforts to disarm conflict-related emotional barriers
Correspondence should be addressed to Arie Nadler, Professor (Emeritus), Tel Aviv University,
Ramat-Aviv, 69978, Israel. E-mail: arie.nadler@gmail.com
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) [grant agreement number
LE1260/3-1 to the first author]; and the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-
2013) [grant agreement number PCIG09-GA-2011-293602, awarded to the second author].
European Review of Social Psychology, 2015
Vol. 26, No. 1, 93–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
© 2015 European Association of Social Psychology
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

and thereby facilitate improved intergroup relations. Another manifestation of
this realisation is the growth of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in legal
theory and practice (e.g., Boyes-Watson, 2008). As opposed to the more tradi-
tional emphases on punishing the wrongdoer (Whitman, 2003), ADR seeks to
end conflict by healing ruptured relationships between adversaries through dis-
arming each party’s negative emotions toward the other (Braithwaite, 2002).
These societal changes have been reflected in the social psychological study
of intergroup conflict, which has shifted from the earlier realist approach that
views conflict as emanating from disagreement on the division of scarce
resources (e.g., land, water; Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1967) to consider the role
of the psychological barriers (e.g., lack of trust, need for revenge) that maintain
and escalate intergroup conflict. Due to this theoretical shift, since the 2000s the
concept of reconciliation has been increasingly popular in scholarly writings on
this topic (Nadler, 2002,2011,2012). The research presented in the present
article is part of this scientific interest in the study of reconciliation.
We begin by conceptualising reconciliation as denoting both an outcome and a
process. We first offer a definition of the outcome of intergroup reconciliation as
changes on structural, relational, and identity-related aspects of intergroup rela-
tions. Then, in the second and main section of the article, we shed light on the
social–psychological process of intergroup reconciliation. We distinguish between
instrumental and socio-emotional reconciliation and then present the needs-based
model, the theoretical framework that has guided our research on socio-emotional
reconciliation. We conclude by discussing the theoretical implications, practical
applications, limitations, and future directions of this theory and research.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION AS AN OUTCOME:
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
Scholars writing about reconciliation as an outcome have dealt with the elusive
nature of the concept in either of two ways. One was to define reconciliation very
broadly, for example, as “a changed psychological orientation toward the other”
(Staub, 2006, p. 868) or “a change of motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes and
emotions”(Bar-Tal, 2009, p. 365). Such overarching definitions represent what
Meierhenrich (2008) calls “conceptual stretching”, because they do not distin-
guish reconciliation from other general concepts such as “intergroup harmony”or
“peaceful relations”. The other way of dealing with this concept’s complexity
was by providing a specificdefinition that centres on the aspect seen by a
particular scholar as the most cardinal feature of the outcome of reconciliation.
An examination of these definitions reveals three different, but related, emphases:
structural, relational, and identity-related (Nadler, 2012).
The structural emphasis, which is especially relevant to contexts in which
the conflicting parties share a common society, views the core of reconciliation
as the transformation of power relations between the advantaged and
94 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

disadvantaged groups into an equality-based social structure (Rouhana, 2004).
To illustrate, scholars studying post-apartheid reconciliation processes in South
Africa argue that stable reconciliation between Blacks and Whites depends on
structural changes towards greater racial equality (Du Toit & Doxtader, 2010).
Achieving such structural change involves macro-level legal processes, such as
affirmative action programmes or nationalisation of resources. Although several
scholars have considered the social psychological processes related to such
macro-level structures (e.g., social identity theory, Tajfel, 1981; see also work
on collective action, e.g. Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), these
processes have been studied primarily in other social sciences (e.g., sociology
or political science).
The relational emphasis views greater intergroup trust and more positive
relations as key elements in a reconciled intergroup reality (Kriesberg, 2007).
“People-to- people”programmes in the era following the Oslo Accords in the
Middle East (Nadler & Saguy, 2004) and community building efforts in post-
conflict Balkan societies (Corkalo et al., 2004) that aimed at building greater trust
between former adversaries are real-world examples of this emphasis.
Finally, the identity-related emphasis suggests that conflicts threaten the
identities of the parties involved and that these identity threats fuel the con-
tinuation of the conflict (Kelman, 2008). For example, when the in-group has
been defeated and victimised, its members may feel humiliated and seek
revenge in an attempt to restore their in-group’s dignity (Lindner, 2006).
Also, when the in-group had committed severe violent acts against the out-
group, the need to maintain its positive moral identity might cause its members
to disengage from these immoral acts by denying responsibility (e.g., claiming
that “the other side had brought it on itself”, Bandura, 1999). Such moral
disengagement prevents the conflict from ending. The identity-related emphasis
thus views reconciliation as the amelioration of conflict-related threats to
adversaries’positive identities.
Taken together, this tripartite view suggests a definition of the outcome of
intergroup reconciliation as: “Trustworthy positive relations between former
adversaries who enjoy secure social identities and interact in an equality-based
social environment”(Nadler, 2012, p. 294). A social outcome that is charac-
terised by changes in all three aspects is likely to represent a more stable
reconciled intergroup reality than one characterised by change in only one or
two. Importantly, however, the distinction between the structural, relational, and
identity-related aspects of reconciliation is made for the sake of conceptual
clarity, as we acknowledge that the different aspects are interdependent. To
illustrate, research conducted in Northern Ireland (Tam et al., 2008) and the
former Yugoslavia (Cehajic, Brown, & Castano, 2008)shows that warm relation-
ships between individuals from adversarial groups (i.e., a relational aspect of
reconciliation) are associated with readiness to forgive the perpetrator group for
past wrongdoings (an identity-related aspect of reconciliation). Thus, the three
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 95
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

aspects of reconciliation operate together to facilitate a general positive orienta-
tion towards the Other that is solid and enduring.
Our measurements of reconciliation across the studies reviewed in this paper
reflect the gradual move from a generalised to a more nuanced understanding of
the outcome of reconciliation. In the early studies (i.e., Shnabel & Nadler,
2008; Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009)wemeasuredthe
consequences of restored identities for a generalised shift from animosity
towards more positive perceptions, feelings, and perceived future relations
with the adversary. As our thinking progressed, we refined our measures in a
manner consistent with the tripartite definition of the outcome of reconciliation.
These later experiments thus assessed not only the role of restored identities,
but also the role of trust in the Other (Shnabel, Nadler, & Dovidio, 2014)and
readiness to work for greater intergroup equality (Shnabel, Ulrich, Nadler,
Dovidio, & Aydin, 2013) as additional aspects of the generalised positive
orientation towards the Other.
The remainder of this article focuses on social–psychological processes that
affect the relational and identity dimensions of the outcome of reconciliation.
THE INSTRUMENTAL AND SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ROUTES TO
RECONCILIATION
Our theorising (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008) distinguishes between instrumental
and socio-emotional routes to intergroup reconciliation: The first consists of
acts of pragmatic cooperation to achieve common instrumental goals (e.g.,
cleaner environment, better health), whereas the second consists of removing
the emotional barriers (e.g., victims’humiliation or perpetrators’shame) that
prevent reconciliation. We suggest that these routes differ in terms of their
temporal focus: Instrumental processes focus on recurring positive cross-group
interactions in the present, whereas socio-emotional processes require coping
with the pains of the past, namely dealing with issues of historical responsi-
bility and culpability.
Another major difference between the two processes has to do with the goal
of reconciliation. Although both instrumental and socio-emotional processes are
important for intergroup reconciliation in all intergroup conflicts, the emphasis
on one or the other depends on whether the desired post-conflict reality is
separation or integration. When adversaries desire a future of two separate social
entities, they need to build a pragmatic partnership that will allow them to coexist
in a conflict-free environment. Instrumental processes are likely to be sufficient
to achieve this goal. This is especially true immediately after the violent conflict
has ended. During this period, socio-emotional processes of reconciliation that
centre on blame, guilt, and victimhood are likely to open the wounds of the very
recent conflictual past and thus hamper the parties’ability to coexist. However,
when the two groups seek integration as a single social unit, the Other serves as
96 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

an immediate and constant source of threat to the in-group’s positive identity, and
reconciliation needs to defuse these threats through socio-emotional processes.
Long and Brecke (2003) make a similar observation by noting that instrumental
processes—which they call the “signalling model”of reconciliation—are impor-
tant when adversaries are separate nations, whereas socio-emotional processes—
which they call the “forgiveness process”—are more important in intra-societal
conflicts. The fact that TRCs, which constitute a socio-emotional process of
reconciliation, are more common in intra-societal conflicts provides further
support for this idea (Hughes, Scabas, & Thakur, 2007).
Admittedly, instrumental and socio-emotional reconciliation represent
mutually interdependent rather than entirely separate processes. For example,
identity restoration processes (e.g., through expressions of apology or forgive-
ness; see below) can also promote the process of trust building (Shnabel et al.,
2014). Nevertheless, for the sake of conceptual clarity it is useful to distinguish
between these two routes to reconciliation, which we discuss in greater detail
below.
Instrumental processes of reconciliation change the quality of intergroup
relations from relations marked by distrust and animosity to relations marked
by mutual trust and cooperation. A major path to achieving such a change is
recurring cooperative interactions designed to achieve a common, superordinate
goal that is instrumentally important to both parties. Through this interaction the
parties learn to trust each other. Sherif’s(1958) seminal Robber’s Cave experi-
ment demonstrates this process. In this field experiment, two hostile groups of
boys became friendlier and more cooperative after having repeatedly coordinated
their efforts to achieve goals that were important for both groups and which
could not be reached by either group acting alone. Consistently, a recent review
(Hewstone et al., 2014) of the research conducted within the framework of
Allport’s(1954) contact hypothesis in various conflictual contexts, including
Northern Ireland (Tam et al., 2008), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Cehajic et al.,
2008), and Cyprus (Psaltis, 2011), found that one of the key mediators of the
effect of intergroup contact on reducing prejudice and promoting positive mutual
behavioural tendencies was out-group trust. Peace-building programmes, which
aim to build peaceful coexistence between former enemies through repeated
intergroup contact focused on mutual pursuit of common goals (e.g., agriculture
development), exemplify the instrumental route to reconciliation (e.g., Corkalo
et al., 2004; Lederach, 1997; Nadler & Saguy, 2004).
Socio-emotional processes of reconciliation focus on removal of threats posed
to the conflict parties’identities due to their involvement in the conflict. Social–
psychological research on the role of emotions such as guilt, shame, hatred,
humiliation, and vengeance in maintaining and escalating conflict (e.g.,
Branscombe & Doosje, 2004; Gross, Halperin, & Porat, 2013; Lickel,
Schmader, & Barquissau, 2004), and on the positive effects of defusing these
feelings on ending conflicts (Lindner, 2006), indicates that threats to group
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 97
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

members’sense of adequate identity can block or, if removed, facilitate reconci-
liation. Real-world examples of identity restoration are the apologies made by
leaders of perpetrator groups to victim groups. Admittedly, existing empirical
evidence points to the relative ineffectiveness of public apologies in promoting
intergroup forgiveness (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008). Yet many scholars argue that
under appropriate conditions (e.g., acceptance of guilt, setting historical records
straight, and discussing reparations; Wohl, Hornsey, & Philpot, 2011), apologies
may constitute honest acknowledgement of the perpetrators’debt to the victims.
This acknowledgement validates and gives voice to the victims’painful experi-
ence (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2003), rehabilitates their previously powerless iden-
tity (Branscombe & Cronin, 2010; Brown, Wohl, & Exline, 2008), and
potentially results in greater willingness to forgive and reconcile (Minow, 1998).
In the next section we present the theoretical framework that has guided our
research on socio-emotional processes of reconciliation: namely, the needs-based
model. While the model has been examined in various contexts of interpersonal
conflicts, the present article focuses on the intergroup domain. The remainder of
this article is thus devoted to the review of research on intergroup reconciliation
conducted within and extending the needs-based model’s framework.
THE NEEDS-BASED MODEL OF RECONCILIATION
The needs-based model is grounded in the premise of social identity theory
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986), according to which group members are generally
motivated to maintain their positive social identity and strive to restore it to the
extent that it is threatened. Applying this reasoning to contexts of intergroup
transgressions, the model’s novel assertion is that the threats posed to victims’
and perpetrators’identities are of an asymmetrical nature. Victims experience
threat to their sense of power (Foster & Rusbult, 1999), honour (Scheff, 1994),
and control (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995), whereas perpetrators
experience threat to their identity as morally adequate social actors (Exline &
Baumaister, 2000).
Our conceptualisation of the differential threats posed to victims’and perpetra-
tors’identities is consistent with theorising about the Big Two in social judgment and
behaviour (Abele & Wojciszke, 2013; see also Abele, Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt,
2008). According to this theorising, there are two fundamental content dimensions
along which social targets (such as groups) perceive and judge themselves and
others: the agency dimension, representing traits such as “strong”,“competent”,
“influential”,and“self-determined”; and the moral–social (or communion) dimen-
sion, representing traits such as “moral”,“warm”,and“trustworthy”(for similar
reasoning see also the stereotype content model; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).
Thus, in terms of the Big Two theorising, victims may be said to experience threat to
the agency dimension of their identity whereas perpetrators experience threat to the
moral–social dimension (SimanTov-Nachlieli, Shnabel, & Nadler, 2013).
98 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

The Big Two identity dimensions represent broad content categories, which
include distinct components. For example, the agency dimension includes com-
ponents such as competence on the one hand and dominance on the other, even
though people perceive these two traits as clearly distinct (Rudman & Glick,
2001). Status and power also fall under the same overarching category of agency,
even though they have been shown to have different effects on people’s beha-
viour (Blader & Chen, 2012). Similarly, the moral–social dimension includes
components such as warmth and sociability on the one hand and morality on the
other, even though they have been shown to constitute different aspects of group
members’identities (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). Nevertheless, theorising
on the Big Two argues that these different contents can be subsumed under two
overarching categories (see Abele & Wojciszke, 2013). Based on this argument,
we suggest that in general, victims and perpetrators can be said to suffer from
impairments to their agency and moral–social dimensions, respectively, yet the
specificthreat experienced depends on the particular transgression context. Thus,
in certain contexts (e.g., intergroup inequality) members of the victim group may
be primarily concerned with their stereotypical portrayal as incompetent (see
Fiske et al., 2002), whereas in others (e.g., open war) they may be primarily
concerned with their impaired sense of power (Shnabel et al., 2009). Similarly, in
certain contexts, members of the perpetrator group may be primarily concerned
about the threat posed to their image as warm and likeable, whereas in other
contexts they may be primarily concerned with their impaired image as just and
moral.
The needs-based model further argues that the experience of threat results in
corresponding motivational states. Using Bakan’s(1966) terminology, victims
wish to satisfy their basic need for agency (i.e., efficacy and control over
outcomes; Choshen-Hillel & Yaniv, 2011), whereas perpetrators wish to satisfy
their basic need for communion (i.e., being accepted and liked by others).
Consequently, victims show heightened power-seeking behaviour (Foster &
Rusbult, 1999) and often wish to get even with their perpetrators (Frijda, 1994)
as a means to reassert their identity as agentic social actors. Perpetrators, by
contrast, experience “anxiety over social exclusion”(Baumeister, Stillwell, &
Heatherton, 1994, p. 246), because the sanction imposed upon those who violate
moral standards is social rejection (Tavuchis, 1991). Consequently, perpetrators
are motivated to restore their positive moral image and reassure their identity as
morally accepted social actors. While in principle this motivation could be
predicted to encourage apology and efforts to undo the harm, perpetrators often
try to avoid unpleasant emotions such as collective guilt (Wohl, Branscombe, &
Klar, 2006) and instead turn to restore their moral identity through strategies of
moral disengagement—minimising their responsibility for the harm-doing, belit-
tling its consequences for the victims, or dehumanising them (Bandura, 1999).
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 99
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Disturbingly, the behaviours stemming from victims’and perpetrators’efforts to
restore their positive identities are likely to further intensify conflict: Revenge
results in cycles of increased violence (Newberg, d’Aquili, Newberg, &
deMarici, 2000), and moral disengagement sets the stage for recurring victimisa-
tion (Bandura, 1999).
Optimistically, however, the needs-based model posits that an interactive
process of social exchange through which the perpetrator group empowers the
victim group, and the latter accepts the former, can serve as an alternative means
through which both victims and perpetrators may restore their identities. The
apology–forgiveness cycle is a paradigmatic example of such an interactive
process. The act of apology serves as recognition of the “debt”that the perpe-
trator owes the victim such that only the victim can determine whether this
“debt”will be absolved. Commenting on this dynamic, Tavuchis (1991) writes
that “once the symbolic overture has been made, the victim alone holds the keys
of redemption and reconciliation”(p. 35), and Minow (1998) writes that “for-
giveness is a power held by the victimised”(1998, p. 17). Thus, when perpe-
trators apologise for past wrongdoings they put their fate in the hands of their
former powerless victims, who are empowered by virtue of being the only ones
who can grant forgiveness. Correspondingly, an expression of forgiveness by the
victim removes the threat to the perpetrator’s moral identity and signals to them
that they are now accepted in the moral community from which they were
potentially excluded. Echoing this idea, North (1998) writes that after forgiveness
has been granted, victims and perpetrators “. . . are equal in terms of respect,
esteem and consideration due them . . . ”(p. 34), and Exline and Baumaister
(2000) write that “expressions of forgiveness and repentance could symbolically
erase the roles of victim and perpetrator, placing the involved parties on a more
equal footing”(p. 138). Figure 1 summarises the process proposed by the needs-
based model.
The next sections first review the empirical findings that support the needs-
based model’s hypotheses that (a) victims and perpetrators experience differ-
ential identity threats and are consequently motivated to restore their agency
and moral image, and (b) empowering and accepting messages from the out-
group can remove the threats to victims’and perpetrators’identities and
increase their readiness for reconciliation. Next, three extensions of the
model are presented. The first examines the model’s applicability to conflicts
characterised by structural inequality, rather than direct violence; the second
examines the model’s applicability to dual conflicts, in which both parties
transgress against each other and engage in competition over the victim
status; finally, the third extension examines whether restoring victim and
perpetrator group members’identities by efforts external to the victim–perpe-
trator dyad (e.g., through interventions by third parties) can also facilitate
reconciliation.
100 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE NEEDS-BASED MODEL’S
BASIC HYPOTHESES
The first empirical test of the needs-based model used a series of studies that
focused on contexts of interpersonal transgressions (see Shnabel & Nadler,
2008). Then, the next step in our research programme was to test the model’s
basic hypotheses in contexts of intergroup transgressions. According to self-
categorisation theory, when their in-group affiliation becomes salient, group
members define themselves in terms of the prototypical attributes of their in-
group rather than their unique personal attributes (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher,
& Blackwell, 1987). Under these conditions, group members can feel guilty
(Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998) or victimised (Volkan, 2001)
due to historical events in which their group has been involved. For example,
Germans may feel like perpetrators when reminded of the Holocaust and like
Figure 1. The needs-based model of reconciliation.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 101
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

victims when reminded of the Dresden bombing, even if they were born years
after these historical events. Based on this theorising, we hypothesised that the
dynamics between victims and perpetrators at the intergroup level—in terms of
experienced identity threats, and consequent needs and responses to conciliatory
messages—would be similar to those found at the interpersonal level (i.e., in
Shnabel & Nadler’s, 2008, set of studies).
To test our hypotheses, we conducted two experiments that tested the model’s
predictions by reminding participants of historical events in which their in-group
either victimised or was victimised by another group (Shnabel et al., 2009).
Participants in the first experiment were 62 Jewish and 60 Arab citizens of Israel
who were recruited by e-mail through snowballing sampling to complete a web-
based questionnaire. They were told that they would participate in a study that
compared responses to the same news story reported in text, audio, or video and
that they were randomly assigned to the “text”condition. Participants subse-
quently read about the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre, in which 43 unarmed Arab
civilians were killed by an Israeli border patrol for violating curfew regulations
they were not aware of. Hence, in this historical context, Arab participants
identified with the role of victims, whereas Jewish participants identified with
the role of perpetrators. In line with predictions, Arab participants reported that
the massacre impaired their in-group’s sense of power more than Jewish partici-
pants, whereas Jewish participants reported that the massacre impaired their in-
group’s moral image more than Arab participants.
Next, participants were exposed to two speeches ostensibly made by an out-
group representative on the massacre’s 50th anniversary. One included a message
of empowerment, which referred to the right of the participants’in-group “to
determine its own fate and live in respect and hold its head up”; the other speech
included a message of acceptance, which referred to the participants’in-group as
“our brothers”and expressed empathy towards its distress following the mas-
sacre. Arabs’willingness to reconcile with Jews—that is, their positive emotional
orientation towards Jews, their optimistic view of future intergroup relations, and
their readiness to make efforts to improve the atmosphere between Arabs and
Jews—was greater in response to the empowering than to the accepting message.
By contrast, Jews’readiness to reconcile with Arabs was higher in response to
the accepting than to the empowering message. These findings support the needs-
based hypotheses that the exchange of reciprocal messages that restore victims’
and perpetrators’impaired dimensions of identity should result in both parties’
greater readiness to reconcile.
Despite their consistency with the model, an alternative explanation to these
findings could be that they simply reflect preexisting cultural differences between
the groups rather than the construal of the in-group as a victim or perpetrator. The
second experiment (Shnabel et al., 2009, Study 2) was designed to rule out this
possibility by testing the same hypotheses in a different intergroup context.
Participants in this experiment were 56 Germans and 65 (Israeli) Jews who were
102 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

recruited through snowball sampling. The design and procedures were similar to
those of Study 1. Participants first learned about a public conference that focused
on “past and present German–Jewish relations”in light of the Second World War.
Consistent with the first experiment, Jews, who were the victims in this context,
reported having a lower sense of power than Germans; correspondingly, Germans,
the perpetrators, reported a lower moral image than Jews.
Next, participants were exposed to two speeches ostensibly made by out-
group representatives in this conference. The acceptance speech included state-
ments like “we should accept [the in-group] and remember that we are all human
beings . . . the [in-group] had suffered great pain under the Nazi-regime”. The
empowerment message included statements like “we should cherish the [in-
group’s] contribution to Western culture and humanity ...itisthe[in-group’s]
right to be strong, proud and determine their own fate”. Consistent with the
findings of the first experiment, Jews’readiness to reconcile with Germans was
greater following a message of empowerment than a message of acceptance,
whereas Germans’willingness to reconcile with Jews was greater following a
message of acceptance than a message of empowerment.
Comparing the responses of Jewish participants across both experiments
allowed us to rule out the possibility that group members’responses to the
different types of messages stemmed from preexisting cultural preferences.
Specifically, Jewish participants did not show a constant preference for a specific
type of message. Rather, their preference for a particular message type was
determined by their in-group’s role within the given context: In a context in
which their in-group served as perpetrators, Jewish participants responded more
positively to an accepting compared to an empowering message from their out-
group, whereas in a context of victimhood, they responded more positively to an
empowering compared to an accepting message. Figure 2 illustrates the results of
the two studies.
Study 1: the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre Study 2: the Holocaust
Figure 2. Willingness to reconcile as a function of the in-group’s social role and type of message from
the out-group. Reprinted from Shnabel et al. (2009). © 2009 Sage Publications. Reproduced by
permission of Sage Publications. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 103
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

EXTENSIONS OF THE MODEL TO CONTEXTS OF
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY, DUAL CONFLICTS, AND
IDENTITY-RESTORATION OUTSIDE THE VICTIM–
PERPETRATOR DYAD
We now turn to review three lines of research that extended the model’s original
formulation.
Applying the needs-based model to conflicts characterised by
structural inequality
In his seminal analysis of peace-making, Galtung distinguishes between conflicts
that involve “direct violence”and those that involve “structural violence”
(Galtung, 1969). Paradigmatic examples of direct violence are wars where parties
kill, maim, and destroy property, whereas structural violence (i.e., group inequal-
ity) characterises relations of discrimination and unequal distribution of concrete
and symbolic resources between advantaged and disadvantaged groups (e.g.,
racial relations in the United States). Whereas in its original formulation our
model focused on conflicts of direct violence (e.g., the Holocaust; Shnabel et al.,
2009), we later applied it to contexts characterised by structural inequality
(Nadler & Shnabel, 2011).
The model’s logic suggests that like victimised groups, disadvantaged groups,
often stereotypically viewed as incompetent (Fiske et al., 2002), would experi-
ence a threat to their identity as agentic and desire more power to restore it.
Advantaged groups, who are often stereotypically viewed as cold and untrust-
worthy (Fiske et al., 2002), would experience a threat to their identity as moral
and just and will seek to restore it by securing others’acceptance. Consistent
with this possibility are the findings that in interracial interactions with White
Americans, African Americans and Latin Americans are primarily concerned
with challenging their stereotypical portrayal as unintelligent and incompetent,
whereas White Americans are primarily concerned with challenging their stereo-
typical portrayal as racist and bigoted (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010).
Based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), however, these differ-
ential threats and consequent needs among disadvantaged and advantaged group
members should be predicted to exist when inequality and discrimination are
viewed as illegitimate, but not when they are widely perceived to be legitimate
(e.g., relations between the genders in past centuries).
This prediction was tested in two experiments by Siem, von Oetingen,
Mummendey, and Nadler (2013). The first experiment manipulated status differ-
ences and their legitimacy with minimal groups created in lab, and the second
used natural groups. In Study 1, in which 133 students of a German university
participated for course credit, the participants’in-group was said to be either high
or low in its status on important scholastic abilities. Further, half the participants,
104 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

in the low-legitimacy condition, were under the impression that this status
difference had been achieved by illegitimate means (i.e., the high-status group
could use hand calculators when solving maths problems, whereas the low-status
group could not), while the other half, in the high-legitimacy condition, were
under the impression that it had been achieved legitimately. Study 2 used status
differences between real-life groups. One hundred and sixty-nine students of
clinical psychology from various German universities participated in a web-
based experiment in which they compared themselves to either social workers
or psychiatrists, representing lower and higher status groups, respectively.
Further, half learned that because clinical psychologists and the out-group mem-
bers were performing similar work, this status difference was illegitimate,
whereas the other half learned that because of different specialisation require-
ments this difference was legitimate.
Subsequently, in both experiments, participants’needs for morality (i.e., their
wish to be perceived as fair) and agency (i.e., their wish to be influential) in their
future interaction with out-group members were measured. As predicted, in the
legitimate status condition of both experiments there were no differences
between high- and low-status group members in terms of their needs for morality
and agency. By contrast, in the low legitimacy status condition, high-status group
members’need for morality was higher than that of the low-status group
members, whereas low-status group members’need for agency was higher than
that of high-status group members. Figure 3 summarises the pattern of results
obtained (Siem et al., 2013, Study 1).
The next set of studies to apply the model’s logic to contexts of structural
inequality examined whether an exchange of messages that restore disadvantaged
Need for Acceptance Need for Empowerment
High Status High Status
Low Status
High Legitimacy
Low Status
Low Legitimacy
Level of Need for Acceptance/Empowerment
Figure 3. Advantaged and disadvantaged group members’needs for acceptance and empowerment
when group inequality is presented as either legitimate or illegitimate (Siem et al., 2013, Study 1).
Reprinted from Siem et al. (2013). © 2013 John Wiley and Sons Inc. Reproduced by permission of
Wiley and Sons Inc. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 105
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

and advantaged groups’impaired dimensions of identities can increase their
readiness to reconcile with each other. Importantly, in line with the emphasis
on the structural component of reconciliation (e.g., Rouhana, 2004), we argue
that in contexts of structural inequality, willingness to reconcile means not only
having more positive attitudes towards the out-group, but also showing increased
support for and readiness to act towards intergroup equality. Whereas for mem-
bers of disadvantaged groups such support means increased collective action to
promote their in-group’s cause, for members of the advantaged group it means
readiness to give up their privileges.
Two experiments examined these hypotheses (Shnabel, Ulrich, et al., 2013).
Study 1 used natural groups of unequal status—that is, 199 students of Israeli
universities of relatively higher and lower status, who volunteered to participate in
“a survey about universities’admission policy”(to make the cover story reliable,
they did not receive credit or payment for participation). Study 2 used an experi-
mental manipulation that randomly assigned participants (70 German undergradu-
ate students who completed an “academic survey”in exchange for course credit)
into groups of high or low status. Students in the disadvantaged and advantaged
groups were led to believe that their university was being discriminated against or
treated favourably, respectively, in a scholastically important context (access to
scarce places on a Master’s programme). Subsequent to this information, which
established unjust discrimination of one group, participants were exposed to a
message from an out-group representative, which reassured either their agency
(e.g., “students in your group are highly motivated and competent”) or their moral–
social dimension (e.g., “students in your group are kind and fair people”). The
manipulation of agency and morality through messages of competence and warmth
reassurance is consistent with the theorising that low-status groups are often
stereotypically portrayed as incompetent, whereas high-status groups are often
stereotypically portrayed as cold and immoral (Fiske et al., 2002).
Consistent with the needs-based model’s logic, members of the disadvantaged
group who received a message that reassured their competence evidenced more
positive attitudes towards the advantaged group than did those who received a
message that reassured their warmth. In fact, despite its positive content, the
warmth-reassuring message did not differ from the control condition.
Correspondingly, members of the advantaged group held more positive attitudes
towards the disadvantaged group when the message reassured their warmth than
when it was a competence-reassuring or neutral message. Importantly, in terms of
collective action tendencies, members of the advantaged group whose warmth was
reassured showed greater readiness to change the discriminatory status quo (e.g.,
by signing a petition to change admission regulations) than participants whose
competence was reassured. Correspondingly, a message reassuring disadvantaged
group members’competence increased their readiness to act to change the status
quo more than did a message reassuring them of their warmth. These findings
illustrate the interdependence between the different aspects of reconciliation
106 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

discussed earlier, demonstrating that identity-related changes (i.e., restoration of
groups’positive identities) facilitated the prospects of structural changes (i.e.,
group members’increased motivation to act for intergroup equality).
In addition, the findings regarding group members’collective action tenden-
cies are of particular interest for understanding the critical role of identity
restoration processes in promoting equality (i.e., the structural component of
reconciliation). With regard to members of disadvantaged groups, collective
action research shows that although they tend to perceive inequality as unfair
and wish to amend the situation, they often fail to act collectively to challenge
the status quo because they feel a lack of collective efficacy (i.e., the belief that
their in-group can resolve the injustice inflicted upon it through unified effort;
Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999). Optimistically, however, our
findings suggest that the reassurance of their competence by the advantaged
group restored disadvantaged group members’belief that they were competent
and worthy of equal treatment, as well as capable of achieving it through
collective action.
Members of advantaged groups were also more willing to make an effort to
increase intergroup equality once the threat to their positive moral image had
been removed by the disadvantaged group’s message of reassurance of warmth
and acceptance. In light of the prevailing assumption that a key element prevent-
ing social change is the privileged groups’motivation to maintain their relative
advantage (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), this finding is
of special theoretical and applied interest. Theoretically, it is consistent with
Leach et al.’s(2007; see also Iyer & Leach, 2010) argument that the traditional
view within social psychological theorising fails to recognise the importance of
morality in intergroup relations. This failure has led to a limited conceptualisa-
tion of social change as driven mainly by the action of disadvantaged groups,
because advantaged groups are assumed to be primarily motivated to maintain
the status quo from which they benefit. However, along with a growing body of
evidence that advantaged group members may also exhibit “solidarity-based
collective action”(Becker, 2012), our findings optimistically suggest that advan-
taged group members may be willing to give up power and privilege once their
positive identity is restored. This finding is practically important because advan-
taged groups have more resources and influence, and therefore their support and
cooperation is often critical to achieving change.
Applying the needs-based model to contexts of dual social
roles
The original formulation of the needs-based model adopted a dichotomous view
of two mutually exclusive roles in conflicts: victims and perpetrators. This view
is consistent with peoples’intuitions (Gray & Wegner, 2009), and in some
conflicts (such as the Holocaust) with consensual historical narratives.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 107
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Nevertheless, in many, if not most, conflicts the distinction between the two roles
is blurred, and each of the parties serves as victim in certain episodes within the
conflict and as perpetrator in others. This is particularly so in protracted, see-
mingly intractable (Bar-Tal, 2013) conflicts characterised by reciprocal cycles of
violence. The present section presents research that extended our model to take
account of such contexts.
An experiment conducted in Liberia, which had experienced two consecutive
civil wars between 1989 and 2003, made the first step towards addressing the
ambiguity of the victim–perpetrator distinction (Mazziotta, Feuchte, Gausel, &
Nadler, 2014). Participants were 146 Liberians who were approached by three
trained Liberian research assistants and were asked to take part in a study on war
and reconciliation in Liberia. Participants were asked to write about an episode in
which either their in-group had victimised people from an adversarial group or
another group had victimised their own. In line with previous findings of group
members’biased historical memory (Sahdra & Ross, 2007), participants indi-
cated that they found it easier to recall episodes of in-group victimhood than in-
group perpetration. Moreover, half of those asked to describe an event in which
their group had perpetrated violence against an out-group also described how
their group had been victimised by this out-group. None of those asked to
describe an event of victimisation described how the in-group had perpetrated
violence against the out-group. Also, the descriptions in the victim condition
were longer and more detailed than those in the perpetrator condition. These
findings are consistent with Baumeister’s(1996) suggestion that the experience
of victimisation is psychologically more pronounced than the experience of
perpetration.
In terms of psychological needs, in line with our model’s predictions, parti-
cipants in the perpetrator condition reported a heightened need for acceptance by
the other group and greater readiness to engage in cross-group contact than did
participants in the victim condition. However, as opposed to the model’s predic-
tions, victims and perpetrators reported similar, relatively high, levels of need for
power. We theorised that the reason for this absence of difference between the
experimental conditions may be that while participants in the victimhood condi-
tion experienced themselves as “pure”victims, those in the perpetrator condition
did not experience themselves as “pure”perpetrators. Rather they experienced
themselves as “duals”—that is, as victim and perpetrators simultaneously—
because even though they were instructed to write solely about incidents in
which their in-group had been the perpetrator, they wrote about episodes invol-
ving both perpetration and victimisation (e.g., violence against a certain out-
group in retaliation against this out-group’s prior violence against the in-group).
Consequently, participants assigned to the perpetrator condition probably experi-
enced themselves in both roles at the same time.
To systematically explore this psychological experience of “duality”,we
conducted two experiments in which we experimentally manipulated “pure”
108 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

victimisation, “pure”perpetration, or duality, and examined participants’conse-
quent needs and behaviours (SimanTov-Nachlieli & Shnabel, 2014). In the first
experiment, which focused on the interpersonal level, 86 undergraduates who
participated in exchange for credit points worked in dyads and had to allocate
valuable resources (i.e., extra credit points) between themselves and their partner.
The feedback on their allocation decisions constituted the experimental manip-
ulation: Participants in the victim role were told that their own allocation
decisions had been fair whereas their partner’s allocation decisions were unfair;
participants in the perpetrator role were told the opposite; participants assigned to
the dual role were told that both their own and their partner’s allocations were
unfair; finally, participants assigned to the control condition were told that both
their own and their partner’s allocations were fair. Next, participants reported
their needs for agency (e.g., wish to exert more control over the experiment’s
results) and positive moral image (e.g., wish that their partner would understand
that they tried to be fair) and had a chance to retaliate against or compensate their
partner by denying or donating credit points to him or her.
Consistent with previous findings, compared to the control condition victims
showed enhanced need for agency, which translated into greater antisocial,
vengeful behaviour, whereas perpetrators showed enhanced need for positive
moral image, which translated into greater prosocial behaviour. Most importantly,
duals showed enhanced needs for both agency and positive moral image. In
terms of behaviour, however, duals resembled victims: Like victims, their heigh-
tened need for agency translated into vengeful behaviour; unlike perpetrators,
their heightened need for positive moral image failed to translate into prosocial
behaviour.
Conceptually similar results were obtained in the second experiment, which
focused on an intergroup context. Participants in this experiment were 96 Israeli
Jews recruited by a commercial research firm for research on Israeli–Palestinian
relations. In the perpetrator condition, participants were instructed to recall two
events in which their in-group had harmed Palestinians and, in the victim
condition, two events in which Palestinians had harmed their in-group. In the
third, dual condition, participants were asked to recall one event of each kind.
Participants’responses were compared to the midpoint of the scale, which
represented a neutral, “no change”control (for additional methodological details,
see SimanTov-Nachlieli & Shnabel, 2014).
Consistent with the findings of the first experiment, Israeli Jews in the victim
condition reported increased need for agency as well as more antisocial beha-
vioural tendencies against Palestinians (e.g., support for use of unrestricted force
in response for any act of terrorism), whereas Israeli Jews in the perpetrator
condition reported increased need to restore moral identity as well as more
prosocial behavioural tendencies towards Palestinians (e.g., support for providing
humanitarian aid to Gaza). Most importantly, Israeli Jews in the dual condition
showed increased needs for both agency and positive moral image. Yet, the
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 109
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

behavioural responses of “duals”resembled those of victims rather than perpe-
trators, as they showed heightened antisocial behavioural tendencies against
Palestinians, whereas their prosocial behavioural tendencies remained unchanged
(see Tab l e 1). These findings reveal that even though duals are motivated to
restore both their agency and their moral image, the need for agency takes
precedence and exerts greater influence on their behaviour.
The findings that members of groups involved in dual conflicts experience
threats, and consequent heightened needs, to restore both their agency and moral
image can also shed light on conflicting-groups members’tendency to engage in
competitive victimhood (i.e., strive to establish that their in-group has been
subjected to more injustice and suffering at the hands of the out-group; Noor,
Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008). Specifically, because the victim’s role
is associated with innocence (Gray & Wegner, 2009) such acknowledgment may
restore the in-group’s positive moral image. This possibility is consistent with
findings suggesting that groups strategically engage in competitive victimhood to
protect their moral identity in response to accusations by out-groups (Sullivan,
Landau, Branscombe, & Rothschild, 2012). At the same time, acknowledgment
of the in-group’s victim status implies entitlement for redress, increases the in-
group’s cohesiveness, and can facilitate third-party support—all forms of social
empowerment (Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012). Moreover, when such
acknowledgment is offered by the perpetrator group, it may serve as admission of
responsibility and consequent moral debt (Minow, 1998), which further empow-
ers the victim group. Thus, “winning”the victim status can potentially satisfy
duals’heightened needs for both agency and restoration of positive moral image
at the same time.
A study that used the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict supported our
theorising about the dual motivations leading group members to engage in
TABLE 1
Means and standard deviations of agency and morality needs, and anti- and prosocial
behavioural tendencies among Israeli Jews assigned to the victim, perpetrator, and
dual conditions
Condition
In-group’s role Agency need Moral need
Antisocial
tendencies
Prosocial
tendencies
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Victims 2.03 1.38 7.15 1.10 4.84 1.60 6.42 1.83 3.81 2.49
Perpetrators 4.64 1.73 5.16 1.16 6.61 1.49 5.04 1.99 6.30 1.97
Duals 3.19 1.27 6.46 1.17 5.92 1.54 6.06 1.98 5.01 2.21
N= 79 Israeli Jewish participants. In-group’s role was measured on a 7-point scale, such that lower
means indicate greater victimhood and higher means indicate greater perpetration. Reprinted from
SimanTov-Nachlieli and Shnabel (2014). © 2014 Sage Publications. Reproduced by permission of
Sage Publications. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.
110 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

competitive victimhood (Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013; Study 2). Participants
were Israeli Arab (N= 78) and Jewish (N= 99) students who were recruited
through ads placed on the campus of Haifa University and received payment in
exchange for their participation. Participants were randomly assigned to read a
text that constituted one of four experimental conditions. The text in the “com-
mon regional identity”condition highlighted the cultural commonalities between
the two groups (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, for similar manipulations of a
common, superordinate identity). The text in the “common victim identity”
condition highlighted the fact that both groups experienced great suffering and
loss due to the conflict (see Vollhardt, 2009, for a similar conceptualisation of
“inclusive victim identity”). The text in the “common perpetrator identity”
condition highlighted that both groups actively inflicted substantial harm upon
each other. Finally, the text in the neutral, control condition was unrelated to the
conflict. Our primary outcome variables were measures of group members’
engagement in competitive victimhood, as well as their willingness to forgive
the out-group, previously found to be negatively predicted by competitive
victimhood (Noor et al., 2008).
As expected, the common regional identity, which was found to increase mutual
prosocial tendencies in contexts of intergroup conflicts not characterised by com-
petitive victimhood (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), failed to reduce competitive
victimhood and increase forgiveness among Arabs and Jews, as it did not address
their pressing need for acknowledgement of their in-group’s victimisation. By
contrast, both the common victim identity and the common perpetrator identity
conditions reduced group members’engagement in competitive victimhood and
increased their readiness for mutual forgiveness, yet they did so through different
routes. Specifically, as illustrated in Figure 4, because belonging to a victimised
group implies moral superiority (Noor et al., 2012), the common victim identity
condition reduced participants’sense of threat to their in-group’spositivemoral
image. Consequently, their need to protect the in-group’s moral image at any cost
(i.e., moral-defensiveness) was experienced as less pressing, leading to reduced
engagement in competitive victimhood and greater forgiveness. As illustrated in
Figure 5, because the perpetrator role is associated with power and agency (Gray &
Wegner, 2009), the common perpetrator identity condition increased group mem-
bers’sense of agency, leading, in turn, to reduced engagement in competitive
victimhood and greater forgiveness. Interestingly, there were substantial differences
between the groups (i.e., possibly due to the gap in terms of relative power,
Palestinians showed greater impairment to their sense of agency, as well as more
competitive victimhood and less forgiveness than Jews); nevertheless, there were
no interactive effects, suggesting that similar processes took place in both groups.
Beyond their practical implications, these findings are theoretically consistent with
our theorising that group members’engagement in competitive victimhood stems
from their wish to restore their agency and moral image—which are both threa-
tened due to the conflict.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 111
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

The effects of identity restoration outside the victim–
perpetrator dyad on intergroup reconciliation
As mentioned in the previous section, our original formulation of the needs-
based model referred to identity restoration processes as “socio-emotional recon-
ciliation”and used the apology–forgiveness cycle as a paradigmatic example of
such processes. Consequently, our initial empirical tests of the model focused
exclusively on the exchange of empowering and accepting messages within the
victim–perpetrator dyad (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Shnabel et al., 2009; Shnabel,
Ulrich, et al., 2013). The model’s formal statement, however, has gone beyond
this interactive emphasis to imply that identity restoration by itself is sufficient to
–.45**
.17*
–.20*
Competitive
Victimhood
Forgiveness
Moral-
Defensiveness
Common Victim
Identity Intervention .08 (.20*)
Figure 4. Serial mediation model for the common victim identity—moral defensiveness—competitive
victimhood—forgiveness path (Shnabel, Ulrich, et al., 2013, Study 2). N= 99 Jewish and 78 Palestinian
citizens of Israel. Standardized regression coefficients (betas) are presented. For the path between common
victim identity intervention and forgiveness the coefficients shown inside versus outside the parentheses
represent the total and direct effects, respectively. Coefficients with one or two asterisks indicate beta
weights’significance level of p<.05orp< .001, respectively. Bootstrapping analysis (1000 re-samples)
revealed a significant indirect effect, the 95% confidence interval = .002 to .166.
–.34**
–.45**
.22*
Competitive
Victimhood
Forgiveness
Sense of Agency
Common
Perpetrator
Identity
Intervention .19*
(
.33**
)
Figure 5. Serial mediation model for the common perpetrator identity—sense of agency—competitive
victimhood—forgiveness path (Shnabel, Ulrich, et al., 2013, Study 2). N= 99 Jewish and 78 Palestinian
citizens of Israel. Standardized regression coefficients (betas) are presented. For the path between common
victim identity intervention and forgiveness the coefficients shown inside versus outside the parentheses
represent the total and direct effects, respectively. Coefficients with one or two asterisks indicate beta
weights’significance level of p<.05orp< .001, respectively. Bootstrapping analysis (1,000 re-samples)
revealed a significant indirect effect, the 95% confidence interval = .030 to .212.
112 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

increase conflicting parties’readiness to reconcile (see the last two rows in
Figure 1). The research in this section explored whether the restoration of
positive identity by itself, even when the source of such restoration is not the
other conflict party, can indeed increase conflicting group members’willingness
to reconcile.
The first study in this line of research (Shnabel et al., 2014) explored the
potential of third parties to promote reconciliation in contexts of interpersonal
transgressions. Even though it did not study intergroup relations, we discuss it
because of its critical theoretical implications and because, so far, research on the
needs-based model found consistent patterns across the interpersonal and inter-
group levels (compare, for example, Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; Shnabel et al.,
2009). Specifically, two experiments used role-playing scenarios to examine the
effects of messages from either the other conflict party or a noninvolved third
party, compared to a no-message control condition, on victims’and perpetrators’
sense of power, moral image, trust in the positive intentions of the other conflict
party, and willingness to reconcile. Participants were university students (N= 173
in Study 1, N= 318 in Study 2) who volunteered to take part in the studies in
exchange for raffle participation.
We found that a message of empowerment for the victim from the perpetrator
(e.g., acknowledgement of their competence and value) increased both their
sense of power and their level of trust in the perpetrator’s good intentions;
sense of power and trust, in turn, led to victims’increased willingness to
reconcile (i.e., the two indirect paths, through both sense of power and trust
were significant). The same empowering message from a third party increased
victims’sense of power, but not their trust; therefore, whereas the indirect effect
of such message through sense of power was significant, the indirect effect
through trust was not. Overall, whereas an empowering message from the
perpetrator significantly increased victims’readiness to reconcile compared to
the control condition, an identical message from a third party failed to do so.
For perpetrators, messages of acceptance from the victims (e.g., expressions
of liking) increased both their positive moral image and their level of trust in the
victim’s good intentions; moral image and trust, in turn, led to perpetrators’
increased readiness for reconciliation (i.e., the two indirect paths, through both
moral image and trust, were significant). The same accepting message from a
third party increased perpetrators’moral image, but not their trust; therefore,
whereas the indirect effect of such a message through moral image was signifi-
cant, the indirect effect through trust was not. Overall, and consistent with the
pattern obtained among victims, whereas an accepting message from the victim
significantly increased perpetrators’readiness to reconcile compared to the con-
trol condition, an identical message from a third party did not.
These findings suggest that the needs-based model in its original formulation
has overlooked the fact that empowering and accepting messages from the other
conflict party successfully bring about reconciliation not only because they
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 113
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

restore victims’and perpetrators’impaired identities, but also because they
constitute trust-building gestures. That is, empowering messages for the victim
from the perpetrators signal to the victims that the perpetrators would not repeat
the transgression, and accepting messages from the victims signal to the perpe-
trators that the victims would not hold a grudge or try to take revenge.
Empowering and accepting messages by third parties do not carry a similar
meaning, as they do not signal the other conflict party’s positive future intentions
(which are the basis for trust building). These findings underscore the interde-
pendence between relational changes, expressed in greater trust, and identity-
related changes, expressed in rehabilitated identity dimensions, in achieving
reconciliation.
Additional research (Harth & Shnabel, 2015) focusing on contexts of inter-
group transgressions examined the potentially differential effects of neutral third
parties versus third parties who share common identity with the other party to the
conflict on reconciliation. One study was in the context of fraud between
competing German universities (N= 124 university students) and the second in
the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. To illustrate the experimental
design, in Study 2, 177 Israeli Jewish participants who were recruited through
snowball sampling to participate in an online study were randomly assigned to
the role of either victims or perpetrators, by reading about historical incidents in
which their in-group had been victimised by or had victimised Palestinians. They
were then randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: a no
message, control condition; a message from a UN representative—that is, a
neutral third party; a message from a Jordanian representative—that is, a third
party that shares common identity with the other party to the conflict; and a
message from a Palestinian representative—that is, the other party to the conflict.
Participants in the victim condition were exposed to an empowering message,
and participants in the perpetrator condition were exposed to an accepting
message from these different sources.
Consistent with our findings at the interpersonal level, messages from the
other party to the conflict, but not from a neutral third party, increased victims’
and perpetrators’willingness to reconcile compared to the control condition.
Interestingly, messages from a third party who shared a common identity with
the other party to the conflict effectively promoted reconciliation: In Study 1 they
were less effective than messages from the other party to the conflict, whereas in
Study 2 they were just as effective, yet in both contexts they were more effective
than messages from a neutral third party. Further analyses showed that the
official from the adversarial out-group was viewed as more representative of
the adversarial out-group than the one from the common identity third party, who
was nevertheless viewed as more representative than the official from a neutral
third party. Perceived representativeness, in turn, mediated the effects of message
source on reconciliation. Given that in intergroup contexts conciliatory messages
114 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

are typically conveyed via group representatives (Blatz & Philpot, 2010), this
finding has important applied implications.
Furthermore, the findings that third parties who shared common identity
features with the other conflict party were able to effectively promote reconcilia-
tion suggest that under certain conditions identity restoration outside the victim–
perpetrator dyad can effectively facilitate reconciliation. Consistent with this
possibility, research on interpersonal conflicts indicates that offenders who re-
affirm their commitment to the moral values that their offence had violated show
greater self-forgiveness and readiness to reconcile with the Other (Woodyatt &
Wenzel, 2014). The possibility that the affirmation of a threatened identity out-
side the victim–perpetrator dyad can positively affect readiness for reconciliation
has important implications for intergroup conflicts. Such affirmation strategies
have the potential to circumvent parties’reluctance to convey empowering or
accepting messages to each other due to their concern that such positive gestures
would not be reciprocated or even be used against them (Shnabel & Noor, 2012).
Hence, some of our ongoing research focuses on such self-affirmation strategies.
In particular, SimanTov-Nachlieli, Shnabel, Aydin and Ullrich (2015) found that
the affirmation of their in-group’s agency increased dual conflicting parties’
mutual prosocial tendencies and behaviour. Moreover, Barlow and colleagues
(2015) found that offering an apology to the victim group increased perpetrating
group members’positive moral image and consequent willingness to reconcile
with and redress the victims.
CONTRIBUTION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The needs-based model has contributed to the trend, observed both within and
outside our field, of paying greater attention to socio-emotional aspects of
conflicts by introducing a novel theoretical framework for understanding
reconciliation. While previous conceptual analysis generally viewed reconci-
liation as a process of identity change (Kelman, 2008), our model identifies
the two specific identity dimensions—namely, agency and morality—which
need to be changed as part of this process. The model highlights the fact that
threats to these dimensions are experienced asymmetrically by victimised and
perpetrating groups, and that their restoration is critical for reconciliation.
Although restoration of identity dimensions by itself—that is, outside the
interaction between adversaries—can have positive effects on reconciliation,
an optimal process consists of direct interaction between the adversaries. Such
interaction consists of an exchange in which the perpetrating group empowers
the victim group, and the latter expresses moral–social acceptance of the
former. The emphasis of our model on the interactional element in reconcilia-
tion and its link to identity changes is consistent with Gopin’s(2004)observa-
tion that “what goes on between people cannot be separated from what is
going on within people”(p. 14). The needs-based model thus offers
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 115
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

integration, typically missing in social–psychological analysis (Semin, 1997)
between intergroup processes on one hand and internal processes of identity
change on the other.
Also, whereas previous research has typically studied the effects of transgres-
sions on either the perpetrator group (e.g., work on collective guilt; Wohl et al.,
2006) or the victim group (e.g., work on collective trauma; Volkan, 2001)
separately, the needs-based model has investigated the dynamics between victims
and perpetrators by examining their responses to messages from each other. As
such, the model emphasises the reciprocal nature of reconciliation processes in
the sense that both victims and perpetrators have the ability, albeit in different
ways, to promote reconciliation. One implication of this emphasis concerns the
onus of responsibility for reconciliation. Whereas the common view is that the
perpetrators should be responsible for reconciling by redressing past wrong-
doings, our model offers a more balanced approach by underscoring the fact
that beyond being the morally culpable party, perpetrators are also psychologi-
cally vulnerable social actors whose basic identity-related needs must be con-
sidered and restored, together with the those of the victims, if reconciliation is to
be achieved and maintained. It should be clarified, however, that this insight is
not intended to undermine perpetrators’moral (and possibly legal) responsibility
for their acts, but rather to identify an existing social–psychological dynamic. To
illustrate, without denying the Nazis’responsibility for the Holocaust, Jews who
participate in dialogue groups (i.e., structured encounters) with Germans must
express (at least some) empathy for Germans’distress if they want to facilitate
reconciliation (see Maoz & Bar-On, 2002).
Finally, the needs-based model has practical implications for the type of
messages that adversaries can convey to each other to promote reconciliation.
Intuition may suggest that in contexts of intergroup conflict, in which positive
gestures by the adversary are relatively unexpected (Osgood, 1962), any positive
message from the out-group can effectively open group members to reconcilia-
tion. However, the model reveals that only a positive message that meets the
specific emotional needs of perpetrators and victims effectively promotes recon-
ciliation. The model’s recent extensions provide additional practical insights by
identifying how processes of recategorisation (i.e., into a common victim or
perpetrator group; Shnabel, Halabi & Noor., 2013), self-affirmation (e.g., of the
values breached by the transgression, Woodyatt & Wenzel, 2014), and third-party
interventions (i.e., by groups who share common identity features with the
adversarial group; Harth & Shnabel, 2015) can facilitate socio-emotional
reconciliation.
Of course, despite its theoretical and practical contribution, the research
conducted within the needs-based model’s framework is not without limitations.
First, the experimental nature of our research, which called for exposing victims
and perpetrators to the same message from the adversary, did not allow us to
directly manipulate exposure to apologies and forgiveness because it would not
116 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

make sense to expose victims to a message of forgiveness from the perpetrators,
and perpetrators—to a message of apology from the victims. We therefore used
empowering and accepting messages that could be plausibly conveyed to both
victims and perpetrators (e.g., acknowledgment of the group’s value and heritage
or morality and sociability). As a result of this experimental approach, although
our theorising has used the apology–forgiveness cycle as a paradigmatic example
for socio-emotional reconciliation, the assumption that apology empowers the
victim, and forgiveness makes perpetrators feel accepted has not been empirically
examined. This is a critical limitation of our theorising in light of the consistent
findings that group apologies, especially, as is often the case, when their content
focuses on the perpetrators’feelings rather than on the victims’suffering
(Berndsen, Hornsey, & Wohl, 2015), are ineffective in promoting forgiveness
among members of the victim group (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008). In fact, group
apologies might even backfire (i.e., produce feelings of anger among the victim
group) under certain circumstances (e.g., when status relations are perceived as
unstable, Shnabel, Halabi, & SimanTov-Nachlieli, 2015).
Future research is therefore needed to assess the full progression from expres-
sions of apology and forgiveness to feelings of empowerment and acceptance,
respectively, and the resultant readiness for reconciliation. For example, it is
possible that due to a strong social norm that victims should forgive their
perpetrators following an apology (see Harth, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2011), victims
might, at least under certain circumstances, feel disempowered when offered an
apology. Similarly, it is possible that under certain circumstances expressions of
forgiveness by the victims might signal to the perpetrators that they can close the
lid on the past and sweep the long-term implications of past injustices under the
proverbial carpet, leading to less conciliatory behaviour (e.g., readiness to com-
pensate the victims).
Another possible criticism of our research regards its use of individual-level
measures (i.e., of group members’readiness to reconcile with their out-group)
even though, by our very own definition, reconciliation involves macro-level,
structural processes that are perhaps impervious to the opinions and actions of
individual group members; a related criticism may be that individual group
members’conciliatory attitudes may not necessarily translate into, or might
even impede, support for equality promoting structural changes (see Dixon,
Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005, for similar criticisms on research conducted within
the framework of the contact hypothesis). We argue, however, that it is likely that
the larger the number of changed individuals, the higher the likelihood that social
change in intergroup relations will occur. For example, in democratic societies a
large number of pro-reconciliation individuals may translate into an election
result that will put a more conciliatory government in power (see Hameiri,
Porat, Bar-Tal, Bieler, & Halperin, 2014, for an individual-level intervention
that increased actual dovish voting behaviour). Moreover, as the study of
Shnabel, Ulrich, and colleagues (2013) reveals, the restoration of advantaged
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 117
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

and disadvantaged group members’positive identities (i.e., the identity-related
aspect of reconciliation) increased their readiness to work for a more equal social
arrangement (i.e., the structural aspect of reconciliation). Hence, even though we
acknowledge the issues pointed out by Dixon and colleagues (2005), we believe
they may be less troubling than there seems at first glance.
Another limitation of our work is that although participants had different
backgrounds (e.g., Israelis, Palestinians, Germans, Liberians) in many of our
studies they were university students, and the assessment of dependent measures
relied primarily on either paper and pencil measures or relatively simple beha-
viours (e.g., allocation of credit points; SimanTov-Nachlieli & Shnabel, 2014).
Future research should aim to recruit more diverse populations and observe more
complex behaviours. For example, it may examine whether and how the inter-
ventions developed in our research (e.g., the induction of a common victim or
perpetrator identity) affect conflicting group members’emotional responses such
as tone of voice or facial expressions (see Butler, 2011) within face-to-face
dyadic interactions. Future research may also examine the model’s hypotheses
outside of the lab. For example, it may be interesting to explore whether
restorative justice procedures (e.g., TRCs) that involve encounters between
victims and perpetrators (see Boyes-Watson, 2008) are more effective to the
extent that victims feel empowered, and perpetrators feel accepted following the
encounter.
Another limitation of the existing research is that it has not yet tried to
integrate the model’s predictions with the literature on collective emotions. An
important distinction in this regard is the one between shame, which emanates
from perceptions of the in-group as dispositionally flawed (e.g., innately cruel or
weak and inadequate), and guilt, which emanates from feeling culpability due to
the group’s past behaviour (Branscombe & Doosje, 2004). Lickel and colleagues
phrased this distinction eloquently by stating that “people feel guilty for what
they have done, and ashamed for who they are”(2004, p. 41). With regards to
perpetrators, it is possible that the amelioration of threat to their moral image
through an accepting message from their victims transforms feelings of shame
into feelings of guilt, and this transformation, in turn, promotes readiness for
reconciliation. This possibility is consistent with the finding that perpetrators’
guilt, but not shame, predicted reparative intentions towards the victim group
(Brown, González, Zagefka, Manzi, & Čehajić,2008). As for victims, it is
possible that an empowering message from their perpetrators, which places
both groups on more equal footing, reduces their experience of group-based
anger (Pennekamp, Doosje, Zebel, & Fischer, 2007), humiliation, and shame
(Branscombe & Doosje, 2004) and consequently increases their conciliatory
tendencies.
Another direction for future research would be to examine the type of message
that group members choose to convey to their adversarial out-group. Because
group members often project their own group’s needs and views on the out-group
118 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

(Pearson et al., 2008), they might fail to realise that the out-group’s motivations
and responses are fundamentally different from their own. Hence, it is important
to identify the factors that lead group members to convey the type of message
that would effectively satisfy the needs of their out-group’s members and facil-
itate reconciliation. Work by Ditlmann, Purdie-Vaughns, Dovidio, and Naft
(2015), has made the first step in this direction. Specifically, Ditlmann and
colleagues found that in interracial dyadic interactions, African-American parti-
cipants who were highly motivated to act as agents of social change (i.e., with a
high “implicit power motive”; Winter, 1991) conveyed more affiliative messages
to White participants with whom they discussed the implications of slavery for
contemporary American society. These affiliative messages led, in turn, to
reduced anxiety and greater support for social change among the White partici-
pants. We are currently examining whether parallel effects would be obtained
among members of the perpetrator group. That is, we test whether members of a
perpetrator group who are high on implicit power motive intuitively understand
the needs of members of the victim group and choose to convey to them
empowering messages in discussions of historical injustices.
Finally, an additional direction for future research involves exploring the
psychological needs of victims of social exclusion. Specifically, theorising on
gross human rights violations suggests that these incidents represent the denial
by perpetrators of their victims’membership in the human community; victims
are therefore subjected to “moral exclusion and dehumanisation”, as they are
“outside of [the perpetrators’] scope of justice, barred from the protections of
community membership”(Janoff-Bulman & Werther, 2008, p. 148). If so, they
may not only experience need for empowerment, as predicted by our model, but
also need to be included in the moral community whose members are entitled to
basic rights. Supporting this possibility, research in South Africa found that
White South Africans had a stronger need for acceptance than empowerment,
whereas Black South Africans experienced both needs equally. Whites were also
more willing to reconcile after their need for acceptance, compared to empower-
ment, was addressed, whereas Blacks were equally willing to reconcile following
the addressing of either need (Meyer & Ferraz, 2015). Thus, future research
should consider the circumstances under which victims experience not only
anger and a sense of injustice (resulting in heightened need for empowerment),
but also a deep sense of rejection.
In conclusion, compared to the study of conflict resolution, the scientific study
of reconciliation, both within and outside social psychology (e.g., in primatol-
ogy; Silk, 2002), is relatively young. Because reconciliation in general, and
intergroup reconciliation in particular is a highly complex phenomenon, which
involves structural, relational, and identity-related aspects, much more research is
required to fully understand the processes that inhibit or facilitate its achieve-
ment. The needs-based model, presented in the present article, has attempted to
make a first step in this direction. We hope that the joint efforts of ourselves, as
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 119
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

well as other researchers of this topic, will build a large body of knowledge that
may contribute not only to the theoretical understanding of reconciliation, but
also to the development of practical interventions to promote it.
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A. J. C., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2008). Fundamental dimensions of
social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology,38, 1063–1065. doi:10.1002/ejsp.574
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2013). The Big Two in social judgment and behavior. Social
Psychology,44,61–62.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Avruch, K., & Vejerano, B. (2002). Truth and reconciliation commissions: A review essay and
annotated bibliography. Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution,4,37–76.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social
Psychology Review,3, 193–209. doi:10.1207/pspr.1999.3.issue-3
Barlow, F. K., Thai, M., Wohl, M. J. A., White, S., Wright, M.-A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2015).
Perpetrator groups can enhance their moral self-image by accepting their own intergroup apolo-
gies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,60,39–50.
Bar-Tal, D. (2009). Reconciliation as a foundation of culture of peace. In J. de Rivera (Ed.),
Handbook on building cultures for peace (pp. 363–377). New York, NY: Springer.
Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman/
Holt.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach.
Psychological Bulletin,115 , 243–267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in
action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,17, 173–198.
doi:10.1080/01973533.1995.9646138
Becker, J. C. (2012). Virtual special issue on theory and research on collective action in the European
Journal of Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology,42,19–23. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.v42.1
Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent
goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,99, 248–264.
doi:10.1037/a0018474
Berndsen, M., Hornsey, M. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2015). The impact of a victim-focused apology on
forgiveness in an intergroup context. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,18, 726–739.
doi:10.1177/1368430215586275
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102, 994–1014. doi:10.1037/
a0026651
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
Blatz, C. W., Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2009). Government apologies for historical injustices.
Political Psychology,30, 219–241. doi:10.1111/pops.2009.30.issue-2
Boyes-Watson, C. (2008). Peacemaking circles and urban youth: Bringing justice home. St. Paul,
MN: Living Justice Press.
120 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Linking crime prevention to restorative justice. In J. Perry (Ed.), Repairing
communities through restorative justice (pp. 67–83). Lanham, MD: American Correctional
Association.
Branscombe, N. R., & Cronin, T. (2010). Confronting the past to create a better future: The
antecedents and benefits of intergroup forgiveness. In A. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B.
Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies (pp.
338–358). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (2004). Collective guilt: International perspectives. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., González, R., Zagefka, H., Manzi, J., & Čehajić, S. (2008). Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt
and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,94,75–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.75
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, 1406–1419. doi:10.1177/
0146167208321538
Butler, E. A. (2011). Temporal interpersonal emotion systems: The “TIES”that form relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Review,15, 367–393. doi:10.1177/1088868311411164
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 283–301). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Cehajic, S., Brown, R. J., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences
of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology,29, 351–367.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00634.x
Choshen-Hillel, S., & Yaniv, I. (2011). Agency and the construction of social preference: Between
inequality aversion and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101,
1253–1261. doi:10.1037/a0024557.
Corkalo, D., Ajdukovic, D., Weinstein, H. M., Stover, E., Djipa, D., & Biro, M. (2004). Neighbors
again? Intercommunity relations after ethnic cleansing. In E. Stover & H. M. Weinstein (Eds.),
Justice and community in the aftermath of mass atrocity (pp. 143–162). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Ditlmann, R. K., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Dovidio, J. F., & Naft, M. J. (2015). Bridging awareness about
slavery across the racial divide: Implicit power, African Americans, and interracial interactions.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check
for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist,60,697–711. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.60.7.697
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When
one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 872–886.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872
Du Toit, F., & Doxtader, E. (Eds.). (2010). In the balance: South Africans debate reconciliation.
Johannesburg: Jacana Media.
Exline, J. J., & Baumaister, R. F. (2000). Expressing forgiveness and repentance: Benefits and
barriers. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory,
research and practice (pp. 133–155). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. S., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Foster, C. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1999). Injustice and power seeking. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,25, 834–849. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007006
Frijda, N. H. (1994). Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In P. Ekman
& R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 263–289). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 121
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common intergroup identity
model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research,6, 167–191.
doi:10.1177/002234336900600301
Gibney, M., Howard-Hassmann, R. E., Coicaud, J. M., & Steiner, N. (2008). The age of apology:
Facing up to the past. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2003). A human being died that night: A South African woman confronts the
legacy of apartheid. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gopin, M. (2004). Healing the heart of conflict: 8 crucial steps to making peace with yourself and
others. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and
moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(3), 505–520. doi:10.1037/
a0013748
Gross, J. J., Halperin, E., & Porat, R. (2013). Emotion regulation in intractable conflicts. Current
Directions in Psychological Science,22, 423–429. doi:10.1177/0963721413495871
Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., Bieler, A., & Halperin, E. (2014). Paradoxical thinking as a new
avenue of intervention to promote peace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA,111, 10996–11001. doi:10.1073/pnas.1407055111
Harth, N. S., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2011). Emotional responses to rejection of gestures of
intergroup reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,37, 815–829. doi:10.1177/
0146167211400617
Harth, N. S., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: Examining
the role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict-party. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations,18, 676–695. doi:10.1177/1368430215583151
Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014).
Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict:Journal of Peace Psychology,20
(1), 39–53. doi:10.1037/a0035582
Hughes, E., Scabas, W. A., & Thakur, R. (Eds.). (2007). Atrocities and international accountability:
Beyond transitional justice. New York, NY: United Nations University.
Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2010). Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust inequality: The
role of group-based emotions. In S. Sturmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), New directions in the psychol-
ogy of helping: Group-level perspectives on motivation, consequences and interventions (pp. 337–
353). Oxford: Blackwell.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Werther, A. (2008). The social psychology of respect: Implications for
delegitimization and reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social
psychology of inter-group reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful co-existence (pp. 145–
171). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kelman, H. C. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T.
Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 15–32). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kriesberg, L. (2007). Aspects, growth and sequences. International Journal of Peace Studies,12,1–22.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs.
competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,93, 234–249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington,
DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The evocation of moral emotions in intergroup
contexts: The distinction between collective guilt and collective shame. In N. Branscombe & B.
Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 35–55). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lindner, E. (2006). Making enemies: Humiliation and international conflict. London: Praeger.
122 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Long, W. J., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict resolution.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maoz, I., & Bar-On, D. (2002). From working through the Holocaust to current ethnic conflicts:
Evaluating the TRT group workshop in Hamburg. Group,26,29–48. doi:10.1023/
A:1015595027902
Mazziotta, A., Feuchte, F., Gausel, N., & Nadler, A. (2014). Does remembering past ingroup harm-
doing promote postwar cross-group contact? Insights from a field-experiment in Liberia.
European Journal of Social Psychology,44,43–52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1986
Meierhenrich, J. (2008). Varieties of reconciliation. Law and Social Inquiry,33, 195–231.
Meyer, I., & Ferraz, L. (2015). The needs-based model of reconciliation in the South African context:
Afirst investigation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass
violence. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social
identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,76(2), 229–245. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229
Nadler, A. (2002). Post-resolution processes: Instrumental and socio-emotional routes to reconcilia-
tion. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education worldwide: The concept, principles and
practices around the world (pp. 127–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nadler, A. (2011). Reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional aspects. In D. J. Christie (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of peace psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nadler, A. (2012). Intergroup reconciliation: Definitions, processes and future directions. In L. Tropp
(Ed.), The Oxford book of intergroup conflict (pp. 291–309). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Nadler, A., & Saguy, T. (2004). Trust building and reconciliation between adversarial groups: A social
psychological perspective. In H. Langholtz & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The psychology of diplomacy
(pp. 29–47). New York, NY: Praeger.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: The instrumental and socio-emotional
paths and the needs-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J.
D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–56). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2011). Promoting intergroup reconciliation in conflicts involving direct
and structural violence: Implications of the needs-based model. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett
(Eds.), Beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 201–219).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Newberg, A. B., d’Aquili, E. G., Newberg, S. K., & deMarici, V. (2000). The neuropsychological
correlates of forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.),
Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Guilford.
Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive outcomes: What
helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,34, 819–832. doi:10.1177/0146167208315555
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The
psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts.
Personality and Social Psychology Review,16, 351–374. doi:10.1177/1088868312440048
North, J. (1998). The “ideal”of forgiveness: A philosopher’s exploration. In R. E. Enright & J. North
(Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 19–34). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Pearson, A. R., West, T. V., Dovidio, J. F., Powers, S. R., Buck, R., & Henning, R. (2008). The
fragility of intergroup relations: Divergent effects of delayed audiovisual feedback in intergroup
and intragroup interaction. Psychological Science,19, 1272–1279. doi:10.1111/psci.2008.19.
issue-12
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 123
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Zebel, S., & Fischer, A. H. (2007). The past and the pending: The
antecedents and consequences of group-based anger in historically and currently disadvantaged
groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,10(1), 41–55. doi:10.1177/1368430207071339
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, 474–
487. doi:10.1177/0146167207311283
Psaltis, C. (2011). Intergroup trust and contact in transition: A social representations perspective on
the Cyprus conflict. In I. Markova & A. Gillespie (Eds.), Trust and conflict: Representations,
culture and dialogue (pp. 83–104). London: Routledge.
Rouhana, N. (2004). Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation processes: The Israeli-
Palestinian case. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,10,33–52. doi:10.1207/
s15327949pac1001_3
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women. Journal of Social Issues,57, 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239
Sahdra, B., & Ross, M. (2007). Group identification and historical memory. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,33, 384–395. doi:10.1177/0146167206296103
Scheff, T. J. (1994). Bloody revenge: Emotions, nationalism and war. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Semin, G. (1997). The relevance of language for social psychology. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam
(Eds.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 291–304).
Blackwell: Oxford.
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of
Sociology,63, 349–356.
Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Noor, M. (2013). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating
forgiveness through re-categorization into common victim or perpetrator identity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,49, 867–877. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.007
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & SimanTov-Nachlieli, I. (2015). Group apology under unstable status
relations: Perceptions of insincerity hinder reconciliation and forgiveness. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations,18,716–725. doi:10.1177/1368430214546069
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential
emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,94,116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Beyond need satisfaction: Empowering and
accepting messages from third parties ineffectively restore trust and consequent reconciliation.
European Journal of Social Psychology,44, 126–140. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v44.2
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation
through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members:
The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 1021–
1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
Shnabel, N., & Noor, M. (2012). Competitive victimhood among Jewish and Palestinian Israelis
reflects differential threats to their identities: The perspective of the needs based model. In R. J.
Jonas & T. A. Merton (Eds.), Restoring civil societies: The psychology of intervention and
engagement following crisis (pp. 192–207). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shnabel, N., Ulrich, J., Nadler, A., Dovidio, J. F., & Aydin, A. L. (2013). Warm or competent?
Improving intergroup relations by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and disadvan-
taged groups. European Journal of Social Psychology,43, 482–492. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1975
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Siem, B., Von Oetingen, M., Mummendey, A., & Nadler, A. (2013). Divergent motives of high- and
low-status group members: The moderating role of perceived legitimacy of status differences.
European Journal of Social Psychology,43, 137–148. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1929
124 NADLER AND SHNABEL
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017

Silk, J. B. (2002). The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Annual Review of
Anthropology,31,21–44.
SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., & Shnabel, N. (2014). Feeling both victim and perpetrator: Investigating
duality within the needs-based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,40, 301–314.
doi:10.1177/0146167213510746
SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., Shnabel, N., Aydin, A. L., & Ullrich, J. (2015). Agents of Morality: Affirming
conflicting groups’agency promotes mutual prosociality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2013). Individuals’and groups’motivation to
restore their impaired identity dimensions following conflicts. Social Psychology,44, 129–137.
doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000148
Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing, or intractable conflict: Understanding
the roots of violence, psychological recovery, and steps toward a general theory. Political
Psychology,27, 867–894. doi:10.1111/pops.2006.27.issue-6
Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., Branscombe, N. R., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2012). Competitive victimhood
as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,102, 778–795. doi:10.1037/a0026573
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Cairns, E., Marinetti, C., Geddes, L., & Parkinson, B.
(2008). Postconflict reconciliation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in Northern Ireland.
Journal of Social Issues,64, 303–320. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00563.x
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Blackwell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the
social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of
collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin,134, 504–535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Volkan, V. D. (2001). Transgenerational transmissions and chosen traumas: An aspect of large group
identity. Group Analysis,34,79–97. doi:10.1177/05333160122077730
Vollhardt, J. R. (2009). The role of victim beliefs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Risk or potential
for peace? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,15, 135–159. doi:10.1080/
10781910802544373
Whitman, J. (2003). A plea against retributivism. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,7,85–107.
doi:10.1525/nclr.2003.7.1.85
Winter, D. G. (1991). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term management success
from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The Leadership Quarterly,2,67–80.
doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90023-U
Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when
one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social Psychology,17,1–37.
doi:10.1080/10463280600574815
Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Philpot, C. R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies:
Aims, pitfalls and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review,5,70–100.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01026.x
Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2014). A needs-based perspective on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat
to moral identity as a means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restoration. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,50, 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.012
INTERGROUP RECONCILIATION 125
Downloaded by [Tel Aviv University] at 04:12 03 August 2017