Article
Reference
Overcoming negative reactions to prosocial intergroup behaviors in post-conflict societies: the power of intergroup apology
BORINCA, Islam, et al.
BORINCA, Islam, et al. Overcoming negative reactions to prosocial intergroup behaviors in post-conflict societies: the power of intergroup apology. Journal of experimental social psychology , 2021, vol. 95, C, p. 104140
DOI : 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104140
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:156296
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
In Experiments 1 and 2 we included additional measures at post-test for exploratory purposes.
Given the high number of additional measures, for the length of the manuscript, and because these measures were not applied in Experiment 3, we consider that these measures are beyond the scope of this manuscript. Therefore, we describe the analyses regarding these measures in this supplementary material document.
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1 we included additional items assessing participants’ perception of apology (section a), intentions regarding the helper (section b), intentions regarding ingroup members (section c) and intergroup attitudes (section d). We describe below the analyses regarding these measures.
a) Apology perception
In addition to the item reported in the main document (‘To what extent do you think that the apology expresses repentance genuinely?), we included five additional items assessing participants’ perception of the apology at different levels. All participants responded to two items (apology 1 & apology 2), and only participants in the two apology conditions (not those in the control condition) responded to the other three items (apology 3-5).
Apology 1: “Do you think Serbian government regrets what happened during the conflict in Kosovo?”. Overall participants perceived that the Serbian government did not regret what happened (M = 2.45, SD = 1.27). The 2 (helper) × 3 (apology) ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of apology, F(2,280) = 15.80, p < .001, η2p = .10.
Participants perceived that the Serbian government regretted about what happened to a lesser extent in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 1.90, SD = 0.86) than in the control (M =
2.84, SD = 1.51), p = .001, and institutional (M = 2.61, SD = 1.17), p = .001, conditions.
These two las conditions did not differ, p = .17.
Apology 2: “Do you think Serbian people in general regrets what happened during the conflict in Kosovo?”. Overall, participants also perceived that Serbian people did not regret what happened (M = 2.43, SD = 1.31). The ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of apology, F(2,280) = 6.22, p = .002, η2p = .04. Participants perceived that the Serbian people regretted what happened to a lesser extend in the institutional apology condition (M = 2.07, SD = 1.23) than in the control (M = 2.73, SD = 1.62), p = .001, and interpersonal (M = 2.49, SD = 0.90), p = .027, conditions. The two last conditions did not differ, p = .19.
Apology 3: ‘To what extent you would accept this apology?’ (M = 3.58, SD = 1.65;
participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA showed a strong significant effect of apology, F(1,186) = 148.17, p < .001, η2p = .44. Participants were more willing to accept the apology in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.17) than in the institutional condition (M = 2.49, SD = 1.32). We also observed an
interaction effect, F(1,186) = 9.44, p = .002, η2p = .04. Whereas participants were not willing to accept the institutional apology regardless the helper condition (ingroup: M = 2.62, SD
=1.49; outgroup: M =2.36, SD = 1.13), they were more willing to accept the interpersonal apology in the outgroup helper condition (M = 5.06, SD = 1.15) than in the ingroup helper condition (M = 4.23, SD = 1.05).
Apology 4: ‘Do you think that this apology represents what the whole Serbian people really feel?’ (M = 2.41, SD = 1.13; participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA did not show any significant effect.
Apology 5: ‘Do you think this apology represents what this official representative really feels?’ (M = 3.42, SD = 1.95; participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA showed a strong significant effect of apology, F(1,186) = 240.07, p <
.001, η2p = .56. Participants believed that the apology represented to a greater extent what the official representative really felt in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 4.83, SD = 1.22) than in the institutional condition (M =1.98, SD = 1.42). We also observed an interaction effect, F(1,186) = 6.12, p = .014, η2p = .03. Whereas participants were not willing to accept the institutional apology regardless the helper condition (ingroup: M = 1.87, SD =1.37;
outgroup: M =2.09, SD = 1.48), they perceived the apology are reflecting the official feelings in the outgroup helper condition (M = 5.40, SD = 1.02) than in the ingroup helper condition (M = 4.27, SD = 1.14).
In general, results for these additional items assessing participants’ understanding of the apology consistently showed the apology manipulation's main effect. These results were consistent with apology literature and with the results provided in the main document.
Furthermore, they provide additional evidence indicating that the apology manipulation worked as expected. Finally, results also showed that the interpersonal apology, as compared to the institutional apology, was perceived as more sincere and acceptable in the outgroup helper condition than in the ingroup helper condition. These last results seem consistent with our main hypothesis.
b) Intentions towards the helper
Two additional items assessed participants’ intentions regarding the helper.
Helper 1: “Imagine now that the delayed bus arrived just when you jump in this person car, and then you realized that you have finally the opportunity to get your destination by taking the bus as expected. In such circumstances, would you still accept the help
proposed?”. The ANOVA showed a strong significant main effect of the helper, F(1,280) = 1003.33, p < .001, η2p = .78. Participants were more willing to accept the help offered by the ingroup member (M = 6.01, SD = 0.93) than the help offered by the outgroup member (M
=2.64, SD = 1.26). Furthermore, the apology main effect was also significant, F(2,280) =
22.16, p < .001, η2p = .13. Participants were more willing to accept the help in the
interpersonal apology condition (M = 4.81, SD = 1.25) than in the control (M = 3.99, SD = 2.26) and institutional (M = 4.17, SD = 2.28) conditions. Finally, the analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect, F(2,280) = 55.25, p < .001, η2p = .28 (see Table 1). The apology effect was significant the ingroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 5.71, SD = 0.79;
control: M = 6.04, SD = 1.05; institutional: M = 6.28, SD = 0.85), F(2,280) = 4.79, p = .009, η2p = .03, but this effect was particularly stronger in the outgroup helper condition
(interpersonal: M = 3.92, SD = 0.96; control: M = 1.94, SD = 0.83; institutional: M = 2.06, SD
= 0.87), F(2,280) = 72.63, p < .001, η2p = .34.
Helper 2: “To what extent would you like to keep contact with this person in the future?” (M = 3.92, SD = 2.02). The ANOVA showed a strong significant helper main effect, F(1,280) = 1631.19, p < .001, η2p = .85. Participants were more willing to keep contact with the ingroup member (M = 5.78, SD = 0.84) than with the outgroup member (M =2.07, SD = 0.77). The interaction was also significant, F(2,280) = 14.43, p < .001, η2p = .09. The helper main effect was reduced in the interpersonal condition, as compared to the control and institutional conditions. Indeed, the apology effect was significant both in the ingroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 5.44, SD = 0.82; control: M = 6.00, SD = 0.87; institutional: M
= 5.89, SD = 0.72), F(2,280) = 7.10, p = .001, η2p = .04, and in the outgroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 2.42, SD = 0.57; control: M = 1.85, SD = 0.71; institutional: M = 1.94, SD
= 0.89), F(2,280) = 7.34, p = .001, η2p = .04. Overall, participants were more willing to keep contact with the helper in the interpersonal apology condition than in the control and
institutional conditions.
Overall, the analyses on the additional items assessing participants’ reactions to the helper showed a significant main effect of the helper that was significantly moderated by the
apology. More specifically, participants’ intentions towards the outgroup helper (to accept the
help and to keep contact in the future) were more favorable in the interpersonal apology condition than in the control and institutional apology conditions. Again, these findings are consistent with those reported in the manuscript regarding participants’ attributed empathy and altruistic motives to the helper, as well as their willingness to accept the help.
c) Intentions toward the ingroup
One single item assessed participants’ intentions to help an ingroup member in need (Ingroup 1: “In the future, would you actually help an Albanian person in need?”; M = 6.49, SD = 0.63). The ANOVA indicated a main effect of the helper, F(1,280) = 4.72, p = .031, η2p = .01, and a significant interaction effect, F(2,280) = 6.84, p = .001, η2p = .04. However, participants were strongly willing to help an ingroup member, but the presence of a ceiling effect likely limits these results.
d) Outgroup attitudes
We included three additional measures assessing participants’ attitudes towards the outgroup: 1 item assessed participants’ willingness to help a Serbian person in need, 1 item assessed participants’ feelings towards the outgroup, and an 11-item scale assessing overall attitudes towards the outgroup.
Outgroup1. Willingness to help an outgroup member: ‘In the future, would you actually help a Serbian person in need?’ M = 2.79, SD = 1.22). The ANOVA showed as significant helper, F(1,280) = 68.58, p < .001, η2p = .19, and apology, main effects, F(2,280) = 45.97, p < .001, η2p = .24. Participants were more willing to help an outgroup member in the outgroup helper condition (M = 3.23, SD = 0.80) than in the outgroup helper condition (M
=3.50, SD = 0.99). They were also more willing in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 2.30, SD = 1.08) than in the control and institutional conditions (M =2.55, SD = 1.25). The interaction effect was also significant, F(2,280) = 37.30, p < .001, η2p = .21. The apology effect was not significant for the outgroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 3.29, SD =
0.84; control: M = 3.02, SD = 0.75; institutional: M = 3.38, SD = 0.76), F(2,280) = 2.03, p = .13, η2p = .01, but it was significant for the ingroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 3.71, SD = 1.09; control: M = 1.58, SD = 0.87; institutional: M = 1.72, SD = 1.07), F(2,280) = 81.25, p < .001, η2p = .36. In the outgroup helper condition, participants were willing to help an outgroup member regardless the apology condition. However, in the ingroup helper condition, they were willing to help an outgroup member to a greater extent in the interpersonal apology condition than in the control and institutional conditions. Put
differently, participants were more willing to help an outgroup member in need either when an outgroup member offered help to them or when apologies were interpersonal. This speaks again for the important role of interpersonal apology on intergroup helping and relations.
Outgroup 2. Feeling thermometer: ‘Overall, which are your feelings towards Serbian people?’ (1=negative and 7=positive; M = 1.65, SD = 0.85). The ANOVA only showed a significant apology main effect, F(2,280) = 74.42, p < .001, η2p = .34. Participants indicated less negative feelings in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 2.35, SD = 0.75) than in the control (M = 1.26, SD = 0.52) and institutional (M = 1.33, SD = 0.78) apology conditions. However, participants had strong negative feelings, and this analysis can be limited by a floor effect.
Outgroup 3, Negative attitudes. An initial PCA extracted three factors : The first
factor accounted for 27.7% of variance and included 5 items ( ‘Serbians living here should not push themselves where they are not wanted ‘; ‘If Albanians employers only want to hire a Serbian person, that’s their business ‘; ‘It makes me angry when I hear Serbians demanding the same rights as Albanians citizens ‘; ‘Some Serbians are just inferior to Albanians’, and
‘To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others groups such as people from Serbian Ethnicity’), the second factor accounted for a 14.17% of variance and included 3 items ( ‘Serbians should have as much to say about the future of Kosovo as Albanians who
were born and raised here’; ‘It is good to have Serbian people living in Kosovo’, and ‘We should promote equality among Albanians and Serbians, regardless of ethnic origin’), and the third factor accounted for 11.93% of variance (If Serbians were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in Kosovo’, and ‘It is important that we treat Serbians as equals’).
One item did not contribute significantly to any of the three factors (eigenvalues < .27).
Reliability analyses showed an appropriate internal consistency for the first factor (α = .79), but not for the second (α = .47) and third (α = .32) factors. Accordingly, we computed a score of negative attitudes towards the outgroup by averaging the responses to the 5 items
contributing to the first factor (M = 4.50, SD = 1.35). Note that this scale was not introduced in Experiments 2 and 3.
The ANOVA showed as significant the apology main effect, F(2,280) = 169.30, p = .001, η2p = .54. Negative attitude was lower in the interpersonal apology condition (M = 3.18, SD = 1.35) than in the control (M = 5.12, SD = 0.71) and institutional (M = 5.22, SD = 0.70) apology conditions. The helper main effect, F(1,280) = 12.30, p < .001, η2p = .04, and the interaction effect, F(2,280) = 34.57, p < .001, η2p = .19, were also significant. The apology effect was significant both for the ingroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 2.40, SD = 1.13; control: M = 5.19, SD = 0.78; institutional: M = 5.39, SD = 0.75), F(2,280) = 178.34, p
< .001, η2p = .56, and the outgroup helper condition (interpersonal: M = 3.96, SD = 1.10;
control: M = 5.06, SD = 0.64; institutional: M = 5.05, SD = 0.60), F(2,280) = 25.54, p < .001, η2p = .15.
In sum, the analyses conducted on additional measures that assessed participants’
attitudes and intentions towards the outgroup consistently showed a significant main effect of the apology manipulation. Overall, participants showed more positive reactions towards the outgroup in the interpersonal apology condition than in the other two conditions. Furthermore, we also observed an interaction effect for the willingness to help an outgroup member and the
overall negative attitude towards the outgroup. On the one hand, participants were keen to help an outgroup member in the outgroup helper condition, indicating a reciprocity effect regardless the apology conditions. On the other hand, negative attitude towards the outgroup was lower in the interpersonal apology condition, as compared to the other two conditions, and this effect was significant both in the ingroup and the outgroup helper conditions.
Therefore, the present findings are overall consistent with the results described in the main document and provide additional evidence in support of the main hypotheses.
Experiment 2
Supplementary variables
As in Experiment 1 we included additional items assessing participants’ perception of apology (section a), intentions regarding the helper (section b), intentions regarding ingroup members (section c) and intergroup attitudes (section d). Regarding this last dimension, however, in this Experiment we did not include the 11-item negative attitude scale. We performed again a 2 (Helper’s membership: ingroup vs. outgroup) × 3 (Apology: normative vs. control vs. institutional) full factorial ANOVA for all these variables.
a) Apology perception
Similar to Experiment 1, five additional items assessed participants’ perception of the apology (some of these items were not included in the control condition).
Apology 1: “Do you think Serbian government regrets what happened during the conflict in Kosovo?”. Overall, participants perceived that the Serbian government did not regret what happened (M = 2.14, SD = 0.93). The ANOVA did not reveal any significant effect, F(2, 286) < 2.41, p > .092.
Apology 2: “Do you think Serbian people in general regrets what happened during the conflict in Kosovo?”. Overall, participants also perceived that Serbian people did not regret what happened (M = 3.58, SD = 1.86). The ANOVA only revealed a significant main effect of
apology, F(2, 286) = 10.68, p < .001, η2p = .07. Participants perceived that the Serbian people regretted what happened to a greater extend in the normative apology condition (M = 4.29, SD
= 1.95) than in the control (M = 3.29, SD = 1.75) , p = .001, 95% CI [-1.51, -.49], and institutional (M = 3.21, SD = 1.70), p = .001, 95% CI [-1.59, -.56], conditions. The two last conditions did not differ, p = .76.
Apology 3: ‘To what extent you would accept this apology?’ (M = 3.40, SD = 1.87;
participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA only showed a strong significant effect of apology, F(1,188) = 118.15, p < .001, η2p = .38. Participants were more willing to accept the apology in the normative apology condition (M = 4.59, SD = 1.76) than in the institutional condition (M = 2.28, SD = 1.13).
Apology 4: ‘Do you think that this apology expresses repentance genuinely?’ (M = 3.36, SD = 1.88; participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA only showed a strong significant effect of apology, F(1,188) = 124.70, p < .001, η2p
= .39. Participants perceived that the normative apology (M = 4.58, SD = 1.79) expresses repentance to a greater extent than institutional apology (M = 2.22, SD = 1.07).
Apology 5: ‘Do you think this apology represents what the whole Serbian people really feels?’ (M = 3.77, SD = 1.78; participants in the control condition did not respond to this item). The ANOVA showed a significant effect of apology, F(1,186) = 25.61, p < .001, η2p = .12. Participants believed that the normative apology represented to a greater extent what the whole Serbian people really feels (M = 4.39, SD = 1.19) than the institutional apology (M
= 3.19, SD = 1.45). We also observed a significant helper main effect, F(1,186) = 7.09, p = .008, η2p = .03. The apology was perceived as representing to a greater extent what the whole Serbian people really feels in the outgroup helper condition (M = 4.08, SD =1.85) than in the ingroup helper condition (M = 3.45, SD = 1.65). The interaction effect was not significant.
In sum, results for these additional items assessing participants’ understanding of the apology showed that the normative apology, as compared to the institutional apology, was perceived as more sincere, acceptable, and representing what the Serbian people really feel.
Therefore, these results were consistent with apology literature and with the results provided in the main document. Finally, they also indicated that the apology manipulation worked as expected.
b) Intentions towards the helper
Two additional items assessed participants’ intentions regarding the helper.
Helper 1: “Imagine now that the delayed bus arrived just when you jump in this person's car, and then you realized that you have finally the opportunity to get your
destination by taking the bus as expected. In such circumstances, would you still accept the help proposed?” (M = 3.72, SD = 1.92). The ANOVA showed a strong significant main effect of the helper, F(1,286) = 152.19, p < .001, η2p = .34. Participants were more willing to accept the help offered by the ingroup member (M = 4.85, SD = 1.80) than the help offered by the outgroup member (M = 2.61, SD = 1.29). Finally, the analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect, F(2,286) = 5.75, p = .004, η2p = .03. The apology effect was significant in the ingroup helper condition (normative: M = 4.24, SD = 2.03; control: M = 5.08, SD = 1.58;
institutional: M = 5.21, SD = 1.66), F(2,286) = 5.46, p = .005, η2p = .03, but not in the outgroup helper condition (normative: M = 2.87, SD = 1.67; control: M = 2.56, SD = 0.99;
institutional: M = 2.41, SD = 1.11), F(2,280) = 1.13, p = .32. Indeed, the helper effect was significant for the three apology conditions, but it was weaker in the normative condition as compared to the control and institutional conditions.
Helper 2: “To what extent would you like to keep contact with this person in the future?” (M = 3.49, SD = 1.84). The ANOVA showed a significant helper main effect, F(1,286) = 53.69, p < .001, η2p = .15. Participants were more willing to keep contact with the
ingroup member (M = 4.22, SD = 1.84) than with the outgroup member (M = 2.78, SD = 1.54). The main effect of the apology was also significant, F(2,286) = 6.25, p = .002, η2p = .04. Participants were more willing to keep contact with the helper in the normative apology condition (M = 4.00, SD = 1.68) than in the control condition (M = 3.23, SD = 1.93), p = .001, 95% CI [-1.24, -.30] and the institutional condition (M = 3.28, SD = 1.80), p = .004, 95% CI [-1.16, -.22]. Despite the interaction was not significant, F(2,286) = 2.13, p = .12, η2p = .01, but the effect of the apology was significant for the outgroup helper condition (normative: M
= 3.57, SD = 1.69; control: M = 2.42, SD = 1.44; institutional: M = 2.41, SD = 1.20), F(2,286)
= 7.80, p = .001, η2p = .05, but not for the ingroup helper condition (normative: M = 4.43, SD
= 1.58; control: M = 4.04, SD = 2.03; institutional: M = 4.21, SD = 1.89), F(2,286) = 0.68, p = .50.
In short, these findings are consistent with those observed in Experiment 1, as well as those described in the main document for Experiment 2 regarding participants’ attributed empathy and altruistic motives to the helper, and willingness to accept the help.
c) Intentions toward the ingroup
One single item assessed participants’ intentions to help an ingroup member in need (Ingroup 1: “In the future, would you actually help an Albanian person in need?”; M = 6.36, SD = 0.88; see Table 6). The ANOVA only indicated a main effect of the apology, F(2,286) = 5.87, p = .003, η2p = .03. However, participants were strongly willing to help an ingroup member, and this analysis is likely limited by the presence of a ceiling effect.
d) Outgroup attitudes
We included two additional measures assessing participants’ attitudes towards the outgroup: willingness to help a Serbian person in need and feelings towards the outgroup.
Outgroup1. Willingness to help an outgroup member: ‘In the future, would you actually help a Serbian person in need?’ M = 4.98, SD = 1.15). The ANOVA showed as main
effect of the apology, F(2,286) = 4.24, p = .015, η2p = .02. Participants were more willing to help an outgroup member in the normative apology condition (M = 5.27, SD = 1.32) than in the control (M = 4.83, SD = 0.91) and institutional conditions (M = 4.87, SD = 1.17). The interaction was not significant, F(2,286) = 2.29, p = .10, η2p = .01. However, the apology effect was significant in the outgroup helper condition, F(2,286) = 6.09, p = .003, η2p = .04, but not in the ingroup helper condition, F(2,286) = 0.53, p = .59.
Outgroup 2. Feeling thermometer: ‘Overall, which are your feelings towards Serbian people?’ (1=negative and 7 positive; M = 2.66, SD = 1.55). The ANOVA only showed a significant apology main effect, F(2,286) = 16.26, p < .001, η2p = .10. Participants indicated less negative feelings in the normative apology condition (M =3.37, SD = 1.84) than in the control (M = 2.46, SD =1.25) and institutional (M = 2.20, SD = 1.27), apology
conditions, both p = .001, whereas these two last conditions did not differ.
In sum, these results are consistent with those descibed in the main document
regarding willingness for intergroup contact and feeling at peace with the outgroup members.
Indeed, as compared to the control and institutional apology condiitions, the normative apology condition generated more positive reactions towards the outgroup. Finally, these findings also confirm and extend the results described in the main document according to which the effect of intergorup apology on intergroup level measures is not modeated by the helper condition. Therefore, future research should examine the role of normative apology on group level measures in control conditions (without an intergroup intearction) or in conditions in which intergroup interaction is negative (rather than a prosocial interaction) and as well as with the different type of intergroup contact as suggested in the manuscript.
