Abstract

This research focuses on the impact of apologies and reparations on members of the perpetrator group. Seven experiments across different contexts examined three possible outcomes for the perpetrator group: satisfaction with the act, negative feelings towards the victims, and support for future assistance. This dissertation argues that perpetrator group members are satisfied with an apologetic act for two reasons: the apology improves the image of their group; and it implies an obligation for victims to "get over" the issue (obligation shifting). Realistic power gains or losses for either group were unimportant to perpetrators but in the final experiment victim empowerment emerged as relating to perpetrator satisfaction in addition to obligation shifting and image improvement. Obligation shifting alone related to more negative feelings about the victims and predicted reduced support for further acts of assistance. Image improvement perceptions did not show these effects, and sometimes was related to less negative feelings about the victims. These relationships were causal (Experiment 5) and distinct from any desire to actually satisfy victims (Experiment 6). The first four experiments also tested differences between types of acts on the three outcome variables. When differences were found, obligation shifting and image perceptions mediated these relationships. Even more, if victims feel that obligation shifting is expected by perpetrators after an apology, they are less willing to forgive (Experiment 7). This research provides the first empirical investigation into the outcomes of apologies for perpetrator group members and the results underline the importance of image improvement and obligation shifting as factors in internal support for intergroup apologetic acts.