www.ssoar.info

The Impact of Intergroup Emotions on Forgiveness in Northern Ireland Tam, Tania; Hewstone, Miles; Cairns, Ed; Tausch, Nicole; Maio, Greg; Kenworthy, Jared

Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Kenworthy, J. (2007). The Impact of Intergroup Emotions on Forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 119-136. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1368430207071345

Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.

Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-228187 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(1) 119–135

The Impact of Intergroup Emotions on Forgiveness in Northern Ireland

Tania Tam and Miles Hewstone University of Oxford Ed Cairns University of Ulster Nicole Tausch University of Oxford Greg Maio Cardiff University Jared Kenworthy University of Texas at Arlington

Although prejudice researchers have mainly focused their attention on changing attitudes toward outgroups, other outcome variables may also be important. In post-confl ict reconciliation, intergroup forgiveness may play a crucial role in helping groups in confl ict put the atrocities of the past behind them (Cairns, Tam, Hewstone, & Niens, 2005). Two studies showed that both the specifi c intergroup emotion of anger and infrahumanization (the attribution of more human emotions to the ingroup than to the outgroup) predicted decreased intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Results further revealed intergroup contact as a potential means of reducing anger toward the outgroup and improving attitudes toward them. This research integrated prior interpersonal theory with intergroup literature to examine the concept of intergroup forgiveness and its predictors. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for reconciliation in confl ict societies. keywords forgiveness, infrahumanization, intergroup contact, intergroup emotions

The cycle of reprisal and counter-reprisal . . . had to be broken, and [. . .] the only way to do this was to go beyond retributive justice to Author’s note restorative justice, to move on to forgiveness, Address correspondence to Tania Tam, because without it there was no future. Legal Services Research Centre, 85 Grays (Archbishop Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Inn Road, London NW6 4PT, UK Forgiveness, p. 209) [email: [email protected]]

Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) 10:1; 119–135; DOI: 10.1177/1368430207071345 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

To escape a self-perpetuating cycle of vio- forgiving a transgressor (McCullough, Bellah, lence and retaliation inherent in situations of Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001). Thus, forgiveness widespread sectarian confl ict, violence on both may promote overall relationship satisfaction sides must cease, and a strategy of cooperation in interpersonal relations (Kachadourian, must be pursued (McLernon, Cairns, & Hewstone, Fincham, & Davila, 2005). On the intergroup 2002). Intergroup forgiveness may serve to break level, forgiveness involves the release of negative the cycle of violence and aid in the reconciliation feelings toward the perpetrator’s group (Tutu, process after a protracted intergroup confl ict. 1999) and prosocial behaviors toward that An understanding of intergroup forgiveness is of group (Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). People who particular importance in post-confl ict societies forgive a historical perpetrator category (e.g. such as Northern Ireland, where groups involved Jews forgiving Germans) are, for example, more in intergroup confl ict are often encouraged willing to become friends with a member of that to ‘move on’ from the past. Where intergroup group and to buy products made by them (e.g., confl ict is concerned, however, the past is intim- German cars; Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). ately part of the present. The past forms part of Negative emotions that result from intergroup the ongoing intergroup competition central to confl ict persist long after the violence itself has any intergroup confl ict, with people in Northern stopped (Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). These Ireland remembering battles fought long ago negative cross-community feelings must be (Cairns & Darby, 1998). addressed in the promotion of more positive inter- The research on building forgiveness has cen- group relations and reconciliation of the two tered on the individual and interpersonal levels communities. This survey explores intergroup (e.g. McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresten, emotions in the prediction of intergroup 2000). Although the fi ndings of this research forgiveness in Northern Ireland, based on are relevant to the intergroup level, they are theories of both interpersonal forgiveness and not immediately applicable to it. Therefore, intergroup relations. relevant research on interpersonal forgiveness and the effects of forgiveness on individuals Intergroup emotions and forgiveness: must be extrapolated and empirically examined the role of anger on the intergroup level to elucidate why certain individuals on both sides of the divide are able to Relations between groups often involve intense forgive past wrongs and break the cycles of revenge emotions, and although social psychological that typically escalate intergroup confl ict. On explanations for discriminatory behavior tend November 8, 1987, for instance, when Gordon to focus on prejudice as an attitude, specifi c Wilson’s daughter, Marie, was killed in an IRA intergroup emotions may be more condu- bomb attack, he said, ‘I bear no ill will, I bear cive to predicting intergroup behaviors than no grudge’. On the other side of the sectarian general outgroup evaluation is (Smith, 1993). divide, Michael McGoldrick’s son, Michael, Differentiated emotions may be more accurate was shot by Protestant paramilitaries on July 8, for predicting behavior than attitudes are, 1996, yet he pleaded, ‘Bury your pride with my because evaluating groups as simply positive boy. To those who’ve done this, I and my family or negative does not allow for differential pre- forgive you’ (Cairns et al., 2005). Such acts of dictions about groups that are feared, hated, forgiveness may break a cycle of vengeance and respected, or liked. Moreover, a greater variety violence. Such acts are, however, rare. of outgroup behaviors may be explained by Forgiveness permits the relationship between various emotions (Mackie & Smith, 2002). Anger, the confl icting parties to move forward after a for example, is particularly related to decreased transgression (Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). forgiveness. In fact, according to Baumeister, Forgiving a transgressor has, in fact, repeatedly Exline, & Sommer (1998), ‘to forgive someone been shown to result in less turmoil and more means to cease feeling angry or resentful over the positive emotional reactions compared with not transgression’ (p. 85). The process of forgiving,

120 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness on the individual level, involves letting go of Specifi c emotions are states of immediate negative emotions without seeking to improve readiness to act (Frijda, 1986) and are theorized relations with the transgressor (Baumeister as directing behavior (Smith, 1993). Mackie, et al., 1998). However, whether or not the victim Devos, and Smith (2000) have shown that seeks to improve relations with the transgressor, although anger and fear are both forms of forgiveness can occur only after emotions aroused negative affect, they are empirically distinct by offensive behavior have been addressed and provoke different intergroup behaviors: fear (Harber & Wenberg, 2005). predicts avoidant action tendencies, while anger In forgiveness intervention programs, there predicts aggressive action tendencies against is also a need to confront angry emotions after the outgroup (Devos, Silver, Mackie, & Smith, being hurt. For example, although Enright 2002). In addition to these negative intergroup and colleagues’ ‘Process Model of Forgiveness’ emotions, our recent studies have shown positive emphasizes cognitive processes such as reframing intergroup emotions to be key predictors of the offense, achieving insight, and fi nding mean- out-group attitudes and action tendencies (Tam ing, it begins with the ‘confrontation of anger’ et al., 2006). In the case of predicting forgiveness (Enright & Coyle, 1998). According to Freedman toward the outgroup, the specifi c emotion of and Enright (1996), confronting hostile emotions anger is likely to be involved. We thus tested comes before the cognitive shifts that solidify this for the fi rst time on the intergroup level, forgiveness: ‘Before forgiving, one needs to and hypothesized that the specifi c intergroup express his or her justifi ed anger’ (p. 985) and emotion of anger would be a better predictor ‘the point is to release, not harbor, the anger’ of decreased intergroup forgiveness than a (p. 986). The confrontation and expression general outgroup evaluation and other specifi c of offense-related emotions is one of the most intergroup emotions would be. important elements in the ‘Process Model of Forgiveness’ (Enright & Coyle, 1998). Infrahumanization and forgiveness Baumeister and colleagues (1998) explicitly defi ne forgiveness as an emotional state. Re- Wohl and Brancombe (2005) maintain that the search indeed suggests that forgiveness is resolution of social confl ict involves more than rooted in emotions (e.g. Harber & Wenberg, just changing negative beliefs; it is also necessary 2005) and therefore should be constrained by to see the humanity in the other. Their research the laws that govern emotions. One principle demonstrated that perpetrator groups that are of emotions is that they are involuntary, in seen as ‘human’ elicit intergroup forgiveness and the sense that, once aroused, emotions cannot more positive intergroup behaviors toward the be defused at will (Zajonc, 1980). Thus, although outgroup (i.e. increased willingness to befriend a person may want to stop feeling angry, hostile, outgroup members and buy outgroup products). or resentful, directly trying to expunge these The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in feelings may not be suffi cient to stop them. South Africa has similarly shown us that what In fact, efforts to consciously suppress or deny seems to be needed is an ability to see outgroup these emotions are more likely to increase members as human like the self (Tutu, 1999). rather than decrease their infl uence (Wegner Such perceptions of the ‘human family’ may & Wenzlaff, 1996). Interventions are needed well be crucial for intergroup forgiveness and to deal with intergroup emotions themselves. the creation of a more harmonious future (Wohl Thus it is important to establish predictors of & Brancombe, 2005). We thus investigated the intergroup emotions. One such predictor is relationship between infra-humanization (seeing intergroup contact, which has been shown not the outgroup as less human than the ingroup) only to promote positive intergroup emotions and reduced intergroup forgiveness. Intergroup but also to mitigate negative ones (Miller, Smith, behavior may be a result not only of emotions & Mackie, 2004). felt toward the outgroup, but also of differential

121 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1) emotions attributed to the outgroup, i.e. fewer considered one of psychology’s most effective ‘human’ emotions attributed to the outgroup strategies for improving intergroup relations vs. the ingroup. Research has shown that people (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003). In tend to infuse an essence (biological, cultural, this study, we examined potential differential religious, etc.) into social groups in order to outcomes that intergroup contact may have for explain their differences. Thus, an ingroup intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. perceived as superior may be endowed with Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, and Voci (2004) ‘the’ human essence, while outgroups are seen have shown that anxiety mediates the effects as ‘infra-humans’ (Leyens et al., 2001). of contact on prejudice in Northern Ireland. Leyens and colleagues (2001) have demon- Our previous research has revealed that it is not strated this ‘infrahumanization’ process in only anxiety but also other intergroup emotions multiple groups with a history of mild confl ict (i.e. anger-related emotions and positive (e.g. Flemish-speaking vs. French-speaking emotions) that explain the effects of contact Belgians). They have shown that people perceive on prejudice (Tam et al., 2006). Emotional what emotion researchers (e.g. Ekman, 1992) processes of healing are crucial to post-confl ict call secondary emotions (e.g. nostalgia) as reconciliation (Nadler, 2001), and anger is a more unique to humans than primary emotions particularly relevant emotion associated with (e.g. pleasure), which may also be attributed forgiveness (McCullough et al., 2000). We to animals. Researchers generally agree that therefore examined the impact of contact on emotions such as anger, fear, and joy are common specifi c intergroup emotions, such as anger, to both animals and humans, while emotions fear, and positive emotions, and hypothesized such as guilt, melancholy, and embarrassment are that people who experienced anger toward the unique to human beings (Ekman, 1992). People outgroup would be particularly disinclined tend to attribute secondary (human) emotions to forgive them, even after controlling for more to the ingroup than to the outgroup people’s general evaluation of the outgroup. We (Leyens et al., 2000). This infrahumanization hypothesize moreover that specifi c intergroup has even been demonstrated on the implicit emotions such as anger will be more predictive of level (Paladino et al., 2002). Using the Implicit outcome variables such as intergroup forgiveness Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & than will a general evaluation such as general Schwartz, 1998), Paladino and colleagues (2002) attitude toward the outgroup. showed that participants implicitly associated secondary emotions with the ingroup and pri- The current research mary emotions with the outgroup more than the other way around. The current research investigates the predictors In this study, we aimed to investigate Leyens of intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland. and colleagues’ concept of infrahumanization It is crucial to investigate forgiveness and recon- in an area with a history of extreme confl ict. We ciliation in real confl ict situations, as laboratory thus examined the differential attribution of research cannot take into account contextual secondary and primary emotions to the ingroup variables vital to intergroup relations in confl ict vs. the outgroup in Northern Ireland, and areas (Pettigrew, 1997). Since 1969, over 3,600 hypothesized that those who infra-humanized people have been killed in sectarian violence the outgroup less would be more willing to in Northern Ireland, and more than half the forgive them. As Tutu (1999) and Wohl and Northern Irish population knows someone who Branscombe (2005) suggest, forgiveness may was injured or killed in ‘The Troubles’ (Smyth be a particularly ‘human’ act. & Hamilton, 2003). Many people in Northern Extensive evidence has established that posi- Ireland, especially the Protestant community, tive interaction between members of different believe it should remain part of the United groups can reduce intergroup prejudice and Kingdom. Others, particularly the Catholic hostility (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, community, take the opposite perspective and 2006). Intergroup contact has in fact long been believe it should instead become part of the

122 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

Republic of Ireland. Religious polarization in forgiveness in Northern Ireland, basing our Northern Ireland is so strong that vital aspects conceptualization of intergroup forgiveness on of life (e.g. areas of residence, schools, shops, the results of focus groups as well as on previous political parties, sports, fi rst and last names) research and theorizing on interpersonal can be identifi ed as being either Catholic or forgiveness, intergroup relations, and emotion, Protestant (see Hargie & Dickinson, 2003). and the small literature on intergroup forgiveness Despite resolution of a range of economic and in this context (Hewstone et al., 2004; Hewstone, social issues (such as differential employment, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006), which education, and housing for Catholics and suggests segregation in Northern Ireland to Protestants), division is still highly symbolic and hinder intergroup forgiveness. psychologically real, and the confl ict pervades On this basis, we hypothesized that: (1) anger- people’s everyday lives. In a post-confl ict society, related intergroup emotions would be particularly it is imperative to promote intergroup harmony, associated with decreased intergroup forgiveness; but the question remains, how can this best be and (2) infra-humanization would also be asso- done? In this study, we address the mechanisms ciated with decreased intergroup forgiveness. underlying intergroup forgiveness in Northern We hypothesized a model in which intergroup Ireland. contact would be associated with decreased anger and infra-humanization, which would in Intergroup forgiveness in the context turn lead to increased intergroup forgiveness. of Northern Ireland This model is depicted in Figure 1. Anger, infra- humanization, and attitudes were examined at To elucidate the concept of intergroup for- the same level, as no causal order among them giveness in Northern Ireland, McLernon, Cairns, was hypothesized. The plus signs indicated a Hewstone, and Smith (2002) conducted a series hypothesized positive relation between variables, of focus groups with people from organizations and the minus signs indicated a hypothesized devoted to the reduction of conflicts, ex- negative relation between variables. paramilitary group members, and victims them- selves. Most participants agreed that it was easier Study 1 to forgive an individual than a group, because it was easier to trust an individual than each mem- Method ber of the other community. Victims were hostile Participants and procedure Participants to the idea of forgiveness and viewed forgiveness were 97 students from three universities in as an act that justifi ed the wrongs done to them. Northern Ireland. Thirty-six participants Ex-members of paramilitary groups were similarly identifi ed themselves as Protestant; sixty-one hostile; they felt their acts were justifi ed at the identifi ed themselves as Catholic. Seventy-fi ve time and that they did not need to ask for, or participants were female, 18 were male, and 4 offer, forgiveness. All groups stressed that at- did not report their sex; their mean age was tempting to impose intergroup forgiveness was 23 years (SD = 6.3). Participants were asked to likely to be counterproductive, but that an act complete a questionnaire about social attitudes of remembrance such as a monument might give and intergroup relations. people the opportunity to share the loss and make forgiving easier. Measures We used a measure of intergroup forgiveness Intergroup forgiveness The measure of intergroup in Northern Ireland that was developed from forgiveness was a shortened form of one used in these focus groups (see McLernon et al., 2002) to previous research (Hewstone et al., 2004, 2006), investigate the concept of intergroup forgiveness developed through a series of focus groups and assess psychological processes that may with Northern Irish citizens (see McLernon foster or inhibit forgiveness in Northern Ireland. et al., 2002). Participants were given the instruc- We explored the predictors of intergroup tions: ‘You may have read in the newspapers, or

123 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

Figure 1. Hypothesized model. The plus signs indicate a hypothesized positive relation between variables, and the minus signs indicate a hypothesized negative relation between variables. heard/seen discussions on the radio and TV when thinking about members of the other about reconciliation and forgiveness in Northern community on 7-point scales (0 = Not at all, Ireland. Now, please tell us how you feel about 6 = Extremely). These emotions were presented these issues’. Participants rated four items on in a randomized order. 4-point scales (1 = Disagree strongly, 4 = Agree To examine the structure of emotional strongly): ‘Only when the two communities of reactions to the outgroup, we conducted factor Northern Ireland learn to forgive each other can analyses. First, a principal components analysis we be free of political violence’, ‘My community on the 12 emotion items, retaining eigenvalues should, as a group, seek forgiveness from the greater than 1, revealed three factors that other community for past paramilitary activities’, accounted for 76.8% of the variance. Factor ‘Northern Ireland will never move from the past loadings, after varimax rotation, showed that all to the future, until the two communities learn the anger items (angry, hatred, furious, irritated) to forget about the past’, and ‘Northern Ireland loaded onto the fi rst factor (> .69), all the fear will never move from the past to the future, items (nervous, anxious, fearful, worried, afraid) until the two communities learn to draw a line loaded onto the second factor (> .80), and all under the past’. Cronbach’s alpha for these the positive emotion items (cheerful, happy, four items was .69. pleasant) loaded onto the third factor (>. 81), suggesting that anger, fear, and positive emotions Intergroup emotions Mackie et al.’s (2000) scale were clearly distinct intergroup emotions. was adapted to assess negative (angry and fear- Cronbach’s alpha for the four anger-related ful) intergroup emotions in Northern Ireland, items was .89. For the fi ve fear-related items, it and a set of positive emotions was added to was .93, and for the three happy-related items, this scale. Participants were asked to rate how it was .82. much of each emotion (angry, hatred, furious, irritated, nervous, anxious, fearful, worried, Infrahumanization The measure of infra- afraid, cheerful, happy, pleasant) they felt humanization developed by Leyens and colleagues

124 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

(2001) was adapted for the Northern Irish scale (0 = Very unpleasant, 6 = Very pleasant). To context and assessed the differential attribution measure the amount of high quality contact, of primary (universal) and secondary (uniquely the interaction between quantity and quality of human) emotions to the outgroup vs. the ingroup contact was examined, by multiplying quantity with two checklists. Participants were asked to and quality of contact together. This procedure, mark the words which they believed to be typical adopted by previous researchers (e.g. Voci & of the other community (outgroup) in one list Hewstone, 2003), allows us to consider these and to mark the words which they believed to two aspects of contact simultaneously. In fact, be typical of their own community (ingroup) in quantity or quality of contact taken separately the other list. The lists consisted of seven positive are often not enough to reduce prejudice; an primary emotions (surprise, calmness, attraction, optimal combination of the two is needed enjoyment, caring, excitement, pleasure), seven (Allport, 1954). positive secondary emotions (optimism, love, passion, elation, nostalgia, admiration, hope), Results and discussion seven negative primary emotions (pain, fear, We hypothesized that anger and infrahumanization anger, fury, panic, fright, suffering), and seven would be associated with decreased intergroup negative secondary emotions (humiliation, forgiveness. To assess infrahumanization, we shame, guilt, disgust, melancholy, disconsolate, computed composite scores for the number of disenchantment). As in previous research, par- primary and secondary emotions attributed to ticipants were asked to select as many traits the ingroup and outgroup for each participant as they liked but were encouraged to choose by combining the selected emotions. To control traits sparingly and to limit their choices to for the number of emotions selected in general, descriptors they believed to be especially relevant proportion scores were calculated such that each to their or the other community. composite score was divided by the total num- ber of emotions selected. We then calculated Outgroup attitudes Attitudes toward the other a fi nal infrahumanization score by subtracting community were assessed using a modifi ed version the proportion score for secondary emotions of Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp’s attributed to the ingroup from the proportion (1997) ‘General Evaluation Scale’. Participants score for secondary emotions attributed to the were asked to evaluate the other community outgroup. The difference between the pro- on 5-point semantic differential scales (1–5): portion score of primary emotions attributed warm-cold (reverse-coded), negative-positive, to the outgroup and the proportion score of friendly-hostile (reverse-coded), generous- primary emotions attributed to the ingroup selfi sh (reverse-coded), insensitive-sensitive, was also computed. We similarly examined and insincere-sincere. The six items created a the differential valence of emotions attributed reliable index refl ecting attitudes toward the to the ingroup vs. the outgroup, and calcu- other community. Cronbach’s alpha for these lated the proportion of positive and nega- six items was .82. tive emotions attributed to ingroup vs. the outgroup. Intergroup contact Contact quantity was assessed To investigate the hypothesized predictors of by asking participants, ‘How much contact do intergroup forgiveness, regression analyses were you have with people who are of a different conducted, and forgiveness was regressed onto religion to you/from the other community quality of contact, quantity of contact, and their in just chatting to people?’ on a 7-point scale cross-product, anger, fear, and positive intergroup (0 = None at all, 6 = A great deal). Contact emotions, outgroup attitude, infra-humanization, quality was assessed by asking participants, ‘In the differential attribution of primary emo- general, when you meet people of a different tions to the ingroup vs. the outgroup, and the religion/from the other community, do you fi nd differential attribution of positive and nega- the contact pleasant or unpleasant?’ on a 7-point tive emotions to the ingroup vs. the outgroup

125 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

(to account for valence) simultaneously. As predicted, anger and intra-humanization pre- – dicted reduced forgiveness (β = –.40, p < .01 .. and β = –.26, p < .05, respectively), over and above the effects of quality of contact (β = –.15, ns), quantity of contact (β = –.16, ns), quality – .34*** × quantity (β = .18, ns), fear (β = .23, p < .05), .. positive emotions (β = .03, ns), outgroup attitude (β = .20, p < .05), the differential attribution of primary emotions to the ingroup vs. the

β .33** – .15 outgroup ( = .07, ns), and the differential .. attribution of positive and negative emotions to the ingroup vs. the outgroup (β = .08 and Outgroup Positive β = –.17, respectively, both ns). – –.13 –.29** –.16

We then evaluated the proposed model with .. only the hypothesized (manifest) variables (see Figure 1) using structural equation modeling

(AMOS 5.0; Arbuckle, 2004). Covariance –.44*** –.17 –.40*** – .72*** .. matrices were used as input (see Table 1), and estimates were derived using the maximum likelihood procedure. To assess overall model fi t, we used the chi-square test, the comparative – .15 .15 .04 –.08 –.05 –.08 .04 .15 – .15 .. .02 1.66 1.97 2.94 3.20 3.36 3.20 2.94 1.97 .02 1.66 fit index (CFI), the root mean square of emotions Anger Fear emotions Forgiveness attitudes – approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized

root mean square residual (SRMR). A satisfactory attribution of fi t is generally indicated by a χ2/df ratio ≤ 3, a primary

CFI ≥ .95, an RMSEA ≤ .08, and an SRMR ≤ .08 (Voci & Hewstone, 2003). The structural equation model examined – –.29** .12 –.08 –.18 –.22* .03 –.22* –.18 –.08 .12 – –.29** emotions) .. intergroup contact as a potential predictor of .05 anger-related emotions, infrahumanization, – and outgroup attitudes, which in turn predicted intergroup forgiveness. Intergroup contact secondary was assessed as the cross-product of quantity and quality of contact, as in previous research (e.g. Voci & Hewstone, 2003).The fi t of the model was good (χ2 = .02, df = 1, p = .88, χ2/ df = .024, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .00). As expected, the model showed that anger, infrahumanization, and outgroup attitudes were

signifi cant predictors of intergroup forgiveness emotions) in the model (β = –.27, β = –.21, and β = .21, all p < .05). Moreover, intergroup contact predicted reduced anger and more positive outgroup secondary attitudes, and marginally predicted reduced

infrahumanization. Twenty-three per cent of emotions the variance in forgiveness was explained in the and criterion variables (Study 1) mediator, Means, standard deviations, and correlations between predictor, model (see Figure 2). p < .001, **p .01, *p .05. primary Differential attribution of Forgiveness Anger Fear Positive emotions Forgiveness Attitudes Attitudes SD 10.65 .17 .17 1.48 1.65 1.42 .56 .74 .56 1.42 1.65 1.48 .17 .17 Mean 20.19 SD 10.65 *** (differential attribution Differential Infrahumanization (differential 1. Table Contact of Contact Contact Infrahumanization (differential of attribution – –.20* –.20* .32** .12 .26** –.10 –.26*

126 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

Alternative models Although the hypothesized than the proposed model did (χ 2 (3) = 10.14, model fi ts the data well, there are always alter- p = .02; RMSEA = .15; SRMR = .08; CFI = .87). natives (MacCullem & Austin, 2000), especially In fact, they fi t the data signifi cantly worse than for a relatively new area of investigation such the proposed model did (∆χ 2 = 10.12, ∆df = 2, as that of intergroup forgiveness. We thus con- p < .05. sidered two options. In the fi rst alternative Lastly, we hypothesized that the relationship model, we tested the potential for forgiveness between the specifi c intergroup emotion of to mediate the effects of the originally hypothesized anger and intergroup forgiveness would be mediators on promoting intergroup contact. The stronger than the relationship between general model thus included decreased anger, decreased evaluation (outgroup attitude) and forgiveness. infrahumanization, and more positive attitudes Although the effect of anger on forgiveness as predictors of greater intergroup forgiveness, was more highly signifi cant than the effect of which then predicted higher levels of positive outgroup attitudes on forgiveness, we conducted contact. The second alternative model tested a structural equation model with equality con- the possibility that forgiveness mediates the straints imposed to statistically compare their effects of contact on the originally hypothesized effects and confi rm that this difference was mediators. In other words, contact leads to signifi cant. Equality constraints were placed greater intergroup forgiving, which then leads to on the paths from anger to forgiveness and decreased anger, decreased infrahumanization, from attitudes to forgiveness. The fi t of this and more positive attitudes. The two alterna- model was signifi cantly worse than the fi t of tive models are statistically equivalent, as they are the original model in which coeffi cients were the reverse causal models of one another. These freely estimated (unconstrained) (χ2 (2) = 15.70, alternative models did not fi t the data better p < .001; RMSEA = .25; SRMR = .10; CFI = .76).

Figure 2. Structural equation model of distal and proximal predictors of forgiveness toward the other community for Study 1. Standardized coeffi cients. + p = .06; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; N = 97.

127 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

The difference in χ2 was 15.68, ∆df = 1, p < .05, further analyses. Forty-eight participants were indicating that anger predicted signifi cantly female, 44 were male, and 6 did not report their more variance in intergroup forgiveness than sex; their mean age was 22 years (SD = 3.8). As did attitudes. in Study 1, participants were asked to complete The results of Study 1 confi rmed the hypotheses. a questionnaire about social attitudes and As predicted, both anger and infrahumanization intergroup relations. predicted reduced forgiveness, over and above the effects of the other variables. That is, con- Measures trolling for the effects of other intergroup Intergroup forgiveness The new measure of emotions, contact, outgroup attitudes, and intergroup forgiveness comprised 19 items, the the differential attribution of primary, positive, four used in Study 1 and the following (each and negative emotions to the ingroup vs. the of which participants were asked to rate on outgroup shows the importance of anger 4-point scales, 1 = Disagree strongly, 4 = Agree and the differential attribution of secondary, strongly): ‘It is important that my community rather than primary or valenced emotions, for never forgets the wrongs done to us by the other predicting decreased forgiveness. Moreover, community’ (reverse-coded); ‘It is important our hypothesized model of the predictors of that my community never forgives the wrongs intergroup forgiveness was confi rmed. However, done to us by the other community’ (reverse- because of the small size of our sample, we sought coded); ‘My community has remained strong to replicate the fi ndings in a second study. It precisely because it has never forgiven past might also be argued, given the exact wording of wrongs committed by the other community’ the four items used in this study, that our measure (reverse-coded); ‘I forgive the other community of intergroup forgiveness, in fact, refl ected for past paramilitary activities’; ‘I will never respondents’ attitudes toward forgiveness, forgive past wrongs committed by the other com- rather than their actual forgiveness toward the munity’ (reverse-coded); ‘It is important that we outgroup. We therefore sought to improve this release our negative feelings toward the other measure in our second study. We included all 10 community’; ‘It is important that we abandon our items from the original ‘Intergroup Forgiveness right to resentment and retaliation’; ‘I believe we Scale for Northern Ireland’ (Hewstone et al., should be merciful toward offenders from the 2004, 2006) and we added nine new items other community’; ‘I am able to view offenders tailored to refl ect defi nitions of forgiveness from the other community with compassion’; from the literature, i.e. in terms of a decreasing ‘I am able to let go of the negative emotions I have motivation to enact retribution and revenge felt toward members of the other community who (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997), have acted unjustly to my community’; ‘I believe letting go of negative affect in response to con- revenge should be sought for acts committed siderable injustice (Rye and Pargament, 2002), by members of the other community’ (reverse- and abandoning the right to resentment and coded); ‘We should forgive members of the other retaliation, and instead offering mercy to the community for their past misdeeds’; ‘We should offending party (Enright and Coyle, 1998). never forgive members of the other community for past wrongs’ (reverse-coded); ‘The two com- Study 2 munities in Northern Ireland must learn not to retaliate against political violence’; and ‘People Method in my community think it is important to take revenge for all atrocities committed by the other Participants and procedure Participants were community’ (reverse-coded). Cronbach’s alpha 101 students from a large university in Northern for the full scale was .89. Ireland. Thirty-eight participants identifi ed themselves as Protestant; 60 identifi ed them- Intergroup emotions Intergroup emotions were selves as Catholic, and three identifi ed them- assessed with the same scale as in Study 1. The selves as other. These three were removed from

128 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness principal components analysis on the 12 items, and infrahumanization predicted reduced retaining eigenvalues greater than 1, again forgiveness (β = –.59, p < .001 and β = –.25, revealed three factors that accounted for 78.1% p < .01, respectively), over and above the effects of the variance. Factor loadings, after varimax of quality of contact (β = .38, ns), quantity of rotation, as in Study 1, showed that all the anger contact (β = .04, ns), quality × quantity (β = items (angry, hatred, furious, irritated) loaded –.39, ns), fear (β = .23, p < .06), positive emotions onto the fi rst factor (> .72), all the fear items (β = .07, ns), outgroup attitude (β = .11, ns), the (nervous, anxious, fearful, worried, afraid) differential attribution of primary emotions to loaded onto the second factor (> .67), and all the the ingroup vs. the outgroup (β = .18, ns), and the positive emotion items (cheerful, happy, pleasant) differential attribution of positive and negative loaded onto the third factor (> .78). Cronbach’s emotions to the ingroup vs. the outgroup alpha for the four anger-related items was .92; (β = .00 and β = –.26, respectively, both ns) for the fi ve fear-related items, it was .91; and for (see Table 2). the three happy-related items, it was .86. We then evaluated the proposed model with only the relevant (manifest) variables (see Infrahumanization The measure of infra- Figure 1) using structural equation modeling humanization was the same as in Study 1. (AMOS 5.0; Arbuckle, 2004). The structural equation model examined intergroup contact, Outgroup attitudes Attitudes toward the other as the cross-product of quantity and quality of community were assessed using a slightly contact, as a potential predictor of anger-related different version of Wright et al.’s (1997) emotions, infrahumanization, and outgroup ‘General Evaluation Scale’. Participants were attitudes, which in turn predicted intergroup asked to evaluate the other community on forgiveness. The fi t of the model was good 5-point semantic differential scales (1–5): (χ2 = .01, df = 1, p = .91, χ2/df = .01, CFI = 1.00, warm-cold (reverse-coded), negative-positive, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .00). As expected, the friendly-hostile (reverse-coded), suspicious- model showed that anger, infrahumanization, trusting, respect-contempt (reverse-coded), and outgroup attitude were signifi cant predictors and admiration-disgust (reverse-coded). The six of intergroup forgiveness in the model (β = –.53, items created a reliable index refl ecting attitude β = –.19, and β = .19, all p < .05). Intergroup towards the other community. Cronbach’s alpha contact predicted reduced anger toward the for these six items was .86. outgroup (β = –.49, p < .001) and more pos- itive outgroup attitudes (β = .53, p < .001); Intergroup contact Intergroup contact was as- however, contact did not predict reduced sessed in the same way as in Study 1. Again, to infrahumanization (β = .10, ns). Fortyfour per measure the amount of high quality contact, the cent of the variance in forgiveness was explained quantity and quality of contact were multiplied by our model (see Figure 3). together (see Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Alternative models We again considered Results and discussion two alternatives to the model proposed. The As in Study 1, to investigate the hypothesized fi rst alternative model again included decreased predictors of intergroup forgiveness, regression anger, decreased infrahumanization, and analyses were conducted, and forgiveness was more positive attitudes as predictors of greater regressed onto quality of contact, quantity of intergroup forgiveness, which then predicted contact, and their cross-product, anger, fear, higher levels of positive contact. The second and positive intergroup emotions, outgroup alternative model tested the possibility that attitude, infrahumanization, the differential at- contact leads to greater intergroup forgiving, tribution of primary emotions to the ingroup which then leads to decreased anger, decreased vs. the outgroup, and the differential attrib- infrahumanization, and more positive attitudes. ution of positive and negative emotions to the The alternative models did not fi t the data better ingroup vs. the outgroup. As predicted, anger than the proposed model did (χ2 (3) = 27.22,

129 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

p < .001; RMSEA = .29; SRMR = .08; CFI = .79). As in Study 1, these two alternative models are – . statistically equivalent, as they are the reverse causal models of one another, and again both alternative models fi t the data signifi cantly worse than the proposed model did (∆χ2 = 27.21, – .45*** . ∆df = 2, p < .05. Finally, we again hypothesized that the relationship between the specifi c intergroup emotion of anger and intergroup forgiveness

– 39*** .53*** – 39*** would be stronger than the relationship between . a general evaluation (outgroup attitude) and Positive Outgroup Positive forgiveness. Although the effect of anger on forgiveness was more highly signifi cant in the

– –.20 –.33** –.35*** – –.20 –.33** model than the effect of outgroup attitudes . on forgiveness, we conducted a structural equation model with equality constraints imposed to compare their effects statistically – –.67*** –.36*** –.62*** –.55*** –.62*** –.36*** – –.67*** . and confi rm that this difference was signifi cant. Equality constraints were placed on the paths

from anger to forgiveness and from attitudes to forgiveness. The fi t of this model was sig-

emotions Anger Fear emotions Forgiveness attitudes nifi cantly worse than the fi t of the original .05 1.53 1.87 3.68 2.85 3.23 2.85 3.68 1.87 .05 1.53 – model in which coeffi cients were freely estimated χ attribution of (unconstrained) ( 2 (2) = 45.52, p < .001; primary RMSEA = .46; SRMR = .19; CFI = .65). The dif-

ference in χ2 was 45.51, ∆df = 1, p < .05, indicating that anger predicted signifi cantly more variance in intergroup forgiveness than did attitudes. emotions) – –.03 –.07 .12 .05 .11 .05 .12 –.07 – –.03 . General discussion

secondary Both Catholics and Protestants have experienced a history of murder and violence from the other community (Smyth & Hamilton, 2003). Although the Belfast Agreement (signed on April 10, 1998) provided a way forward from ‘The Troubles’ (setting up a local assembly and a power-sharing government, embracing all the major political parties), the formal resolution

emotions) – –.24* of –.08 a confl –.15 ict is –.04 often only –.12 the fi .14 rst step toward

*p < .05. peaceful coexistence. Individuals within and ; beyond the parties involved must then engage

secondary in psychological processes to overcome their blighted history and engage in reconciliation **p < .01 ;

emotions (see Hewstone et al., in press). Forgiveness plays

and criterion variables (Study 2) mediator, Means, standard deviations, and correlations between predictor, a key role in helping groups in confl ict put

p < .001 the atrocities of the past behind them (Cairns primary SD 10.50 .25 .25 1.27 1.44 1.46 .53 .92 .53 1.46 1.44 of 1.27 Contact .25 .06 .25 Mean 18.23 SD 10.50 *** Table 2. Table (differential attribution Differential Infrahumanization (differential Attitudes Contact (differential Infrahumanization of attribution Differential attribution of – Attitudes .11 .40*** .32** .51*** –.38*** .10 –.48*** Anger Forgiveness Fear Positive emotions Forgiveness et al., 2005).

130 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

Figure 3. Structural equation model of distal and proximal predictors of forgiveness toward the other community for Study 2. Standardized coeffi cients. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; N = 101.

To explore forgiveness at the community to mitigate that anger toward the outgroup and level rather than at the individual level, we improve outgroup attitudes, and thereby increase used a measure of intergroup forgiveness that the likelihood of forgiveness. Study 1 showed that examined factors beyond personalized trauma intergroup contact was marginally predictive of on the individual level. This measure was reduced infrahumanization; however, Study 2 did designed from focus groups which specifi cally not confi rm this fi nding. Thus, although results aimed to understand the concept of intergroup showed that infrahumanization is detrimental forgiveness in the context of Northern Ireland to the process of forgiving the outgroup for past (McLernon et al., 2002). Based on the results of wrongs, contact may not necessarily ameliorate the focus groups as well as on previous theory and this infrahumanization. research on forgiveness and intergroup relations, Although fear and anger were signifi cantly key predictors of intergroup forgiveness were correlated, both being negative affect, they were hypothesized and tested. Anger and infra- distinctly separate emotions which differentially humanization were identifi ed as proximal pre- predicted forgiveness. While anger predicted dictors of intergroup forgiveness, even after the reduced forgiveness, interestingly fear predicted effects of outgroup attitude, other emotions, increased outgroup forgiveness in both studies, and other variables were controlled for. although this effect was only marginal in In this article, we provided two empirical ex- Study 2 (p < .06). (We believe, from focus groups aminations of the predictors of forgiveness in and other research we have conducted, that fear a real post-confl ict area. These two studies not relates to ‘The Troubles’ erupting again, and only elucidated mechanisms which hinder for- the understanding that mutual forgiveness must giveness toward the outgroup—namely anger be a key part of the process of reconciliation toward and infrahumanization of the other needed to avoid that.) Positive emotions toward community—but they also demonstrated the the outgroup did not relate to forgiveness. That potential for frequent positive intergroup contact is, it is not necessary for people to feel good

131 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1) about the other community to forgive them. But relationship between the specifi c emotion of people who feel angry will not forgive. These anger and intergroup forgiveness. Thus, it may results are consistent with previous research on not be enough to like the outgroup in order interpersonal forgiveness, which demonstrates to forgive them. Factors beyond simply having a strong link between feelings of anger toward positive outgroup attitudes need to be addressed a transgressor and lack of forgiveness. Anger in order to achieve forgiveness. impedes forgiveness (Worthington, 1998). To Intergroup forgiveness plays an integral part achieve intergroup forgiveness, it is also vital in the achievements of organizations such as the for group members to see the humanity in the Northern Ireland Victims Commission. However, other. Results supported this hypothesis and despite the importance of intergroup forgiveness demonstrated the inverse relationship between for areas of confl ict, empirical research on this infrahumanization and forgiveness. That is, construct is lacking. Results suggest that the people who infrahumanized the outgroup promotion of intergroup forgiveness in confl ict (and saw them as less human) tended to be societies should involve certain psychological less forgiving of the outgroup for past wrongs processes. The reduction of the specifi c inter- committed. Intergroup forgiving may thus be a group emotion of anger should be targeted in result not only of reduced anger felt toward the particular; in addition, interventions should outgroup, but also of an increased perception aim to decrease infra-humanization of the out- of the outgroup’s humanity. Confi rming our group. The data, moreover, suggest contact to hypothesis, the differential attribution of second- be one intervention that may help to decrease ary emotions to the ingroup over the outgroup anger toward the outgroup for perceived past (infrahumanization) was negatively related to offenses and enhance more positive attitudes intergroup forgiveness, over and above the toward them. differential attribution of primary (and positive Of course, these implications must be con- and negative) emotions to the ingroup vs. sidered alongside the cross-sectional nature the outgroup. The results thus demonstrated of our research, which makes it diffi cult to predictive validity for the infrahumanization establish causality defi nitively in our model. measure in Northern Ireland and were in line However, previous research and theory suggest with the hypothesis and previous research in the causal order we proposed, and the ability other parts of the world. of SEM to test complex a priori predictions and Smith’s (1993) intergroup emotions theory alternative models allows for some optimism shifted the fi eld of intergroup relations away about its assumed causal directions. Moreover, from the traditional notion of prejudice as this research was also conducted in the context of outgroup attitude to the conceptualization real intergroup confl ict, rather than with mani- of prejudice as emotion. We explored this pulated variables in a laboratory, as we aimed distinction empirically and predicted that the to investigate people’s real-life experiences of relationship between specifi c intergroup emo- intergroup emotions and contact in context. To tions and intergroup forgiveness would be fi nd signifi cant effects under these circumstances stronger than the relationship between general suggests that we are dealing with robust and evaluation (outgroup attitude) and forgiveness. important empirical relationships. However, Results showed that anger-related intergroup we acknowledge that the reverse causal model emotions predicted forgiveness. The signifi cantly may also, perhaps even simultaneously, hold worse fi t of the model with equality constraints true; intergroup forgiveness may also lead to imposed confi rmed that anger predicted more decreased anger, decreased infra-humanization, variance in intergroup forgiveness than did and more positive outgroup attitudes, which, in outgroup attitudes. The results thus favored turn, lead to increased intergroup contact. (This the ability of emotion (specifi cally anger) to model is however statistically equivalent to the predict intergroup forgiveness over that of proposed model, and thus cannot be tested in outgroup attitude, and demonstrated the inverse comparison.)

132 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

The results of this study established predictors Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). of forgiveness for the outgroup. By understanding Structural equation modeling in practice: the antecedents of intergroup forgiveness, it A review and recommended two-step approach. may be possible to create theoretically driven Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Arbuckle, J. L. (2004). Amos 5.0 [Computer Software]: interventions to increase forgiveness in an area SmallWaters Corp. of confl ict. Focus groups with Northern Irish Baumeister, R., Exline, J. J., & Sommer, K. L. citizens have shown a strong antipathy to impos- (1998). The victim role, grudge theory, and ing forgiveness upon victims of intergroup two dimensions of forgiveness. In J. E. L. violence. To promote intergroup forgiveness, Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: therefore, it is perhaps more important to look Psychology research and theoretical perspectives. at the established predictors of intergroup for- Philadelphia: Templeton. giveness. Interventions should aim to include Brown, R., Maras, P., Masser, B., Vivian, J., & elements of targeting the specifi c emotion of Hewstone, M. (2001). Life on the ocean wave: anger as well as emphasizing the ‘humanity’ of Testing some intergroup hypotheses in a members of the outgroup. John Hume, who naturalistic setting. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 81–97. shared the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Cairns, E., & Darby, J. (1998). The confl ict in furthering the peace process in Northern Northern Ireland: Causes, consequences, and Ireland, emphasized the vital role ‘humanizing controls. American Psychologist, 53, 754–760. the other’ has played. ‘We have to realise’, he Cairns, E., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., & Niens, U. said, ‘that our common humanity transcends (2005). Intergroup forgiveness and intergroup our differences’. As part of the healing process, confl ict: Northern Ireland, a case study. In Hume advocated programs that encourage J. Everett L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of Catholics and Protestants to live, work, and forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge. be educated together. ‘The real border is not Devos, T., Silver, L. A., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. between north and south’, he said, ‘but in the (2002). Experiencing intergroup emotions. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice minds and hearts of our people’ (Dozier, 2002, to intergroup emotions (pp. 111–134). New York: p. 291). Taylor & Francis, Inc. For post-confl ict societies such as Northern Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Esses, V. M., & Ireland, an understanding of the psychological Brewer, M. B. (2003). Social confl ict, harmony, and factors that promote intergroup forgiveness is integration. New York: Wiley. imperative, and the consequences of a history Dozier, R. W. (2002). Why we hate: Understanding, of intergroup violence must be addressed. curbing, and eliminating hate in ourselves and our Opportunities for people to deal with their world. Chicago: Contemporary Books. grievances and anger—which clearly hold the Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? potential to derail the peace process—must Psychological Review, 99, 550–553. Enright, R. D., and Coyle, C. T. (1998). Researching be provided. Deep engagement can help people the process model of forgiveness within see the humanity of the other by addressing psychological interventions. In prior hurts, pain, and violence that the groups J. E. L. Worthington (Ed.), Dimensions of have infl icted upon each other (Staub, 2001). forgiveness: Psychology research and theoretical A more complete understanding of intergroup perspectives. Philadelphia: Templeton. forgiveness will leave us better prepared to take Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). on the challenges involved in the process of The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. reconciliation in post-confl ict societies. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. References Freedman, S., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley. 983–992.

133 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). University Press. Applications of structural equation modeling Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, in psychological research. Annual Review of J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences Psychology, 51, 201–226. in implicit cognition: The implicit association Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive 74, 1464–1480. action tendencies in an intergroup context. Harber, K. D., & Wenberg, K. E. (2005). Emotional Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, disclosure and closeness toward offenders. 602–616. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup 734–746. relations: Insights from a theoretically Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2003). Researching the integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105, troubles: Social science perspectives on the Northern 499–529. Ireland confl ict. Edinburgh: Mainstream. Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Intergroup Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Kenworthy, J., Hughes, emotions and the social self: Prejudice J., Tausch, N., Voci, A. et al. (in press). Stepping reconceptualized as differentiated reactions to stones to reconciliation in Northern Ireland: outgroups. In J. Forgas (Ed.), The Social Self. Intergroup contact, forgiveness and trust. In McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiveness: Who does A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The it and how do they do it? Current Directions in social psychology of inter-group reconciliation. Psychological Science, 10, 194–196. New York: Oxford University Press. McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J. S. D., and Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, forgiveness, and experience of ‘The Troubles’ in well-being and the big fi ve. Personality and Social Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601–610. 62, 99–120. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., McLernon, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: F., Niens, U., & Noor, M. (2004). Intergroup History, conceptual issues, and overview. In forgiveness and guilt in Northern Ireland: Social M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament & psychological dimensions of ‘The Troubles’. In C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, N. R. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective research, and practice (pp. 1–14). New York: guilt: International perspectives (pp. 193–215). Guilford. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence, rumination, in close relationships. Journal of Personality and and forgiveness of partner transgressions in Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, McLernon, F., Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2002). 31, 334–342. Views on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Peace Leyens, J. P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 14, 285–290. Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A. et al. Miller, D. A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2004). (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The Effects of intergroup contact and political attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Review, 4, 186–197. 7, 221–237. Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez- Nadler, A. (2002). Post-resolution processes: Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., Vaes, J., & Instrumental and socioemotional routes to Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism reconciliation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), and the differential attribution of uniquely Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. around the world (pp. 127–142). Mahwah, NJ: European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395–411. Lawrence Erlbaum. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Nadler, A. (2001). Post-resolution processes: Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to Instrumental and socioemotional routes to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the reconciliation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices

134 Tam et al. intergroup forgiveness

around the world (pp. 127–142). Mahwah, NJ: (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. principles (pp. 466–492). New York: Guilford. Paladino, M. P., Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez, R., Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Rodriguez, A., Gaunt, R., & Demoulin, S. (2002). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to Differential association of uniquely and non historical perpetrator groups depend on level of uniquely human emotions with the ingroup social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality & the outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup and Social Psychology, 88, 288–303. Relations, 5, 105–117. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). The pyramid Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group speculations about unforgiveness and the friendships on judgments of Catholics and promotion of forgiveness. In E.L. Worthington Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness: Psychological role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. research and theological perspectives (pp. 107–137). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation. 770–786. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic Psychology, 73, 73–90. test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Preferences need no inferences. American Rye, M. S., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). Forgiveness Psychologist, 35, 151–171. and romantic relationships in college: Can Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002). Victim it heal the wounded heart? Journal of Clinical and offender accounts of interpersonal confl ict: Psychology, 58, 419–441. Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social unforgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of Psychology, 82. prejudice. In Affect, cognition, and stereotyping. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Paper received 1 December 2005; revised version accepted Smyth, M., & Hamilton, J. (2003). The human 31 July 2006. costs of the troubles. In O. Hargie & D. Dickson (Eds.), Researching the troubles: Social science perspectives on the Northern Ireland confl ict Biographical notes (pp. 15–36). Edinburgh, UK: Mainstream. tania tam earned her PhD in the psychology Staub, E. (2001). Individual and group identities of intergroup confl ict from the University of in genocide and mass killing. In D. Richard, Oxford, UK, in 2005, and is currently a social L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, statistician and researcher at the Legal Services intergroup confl ict, and confl ict reduction Research Centre in London, England. Her (pp. 159–184). London: Oxford University Press. research currently focuses on policies related Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Voci, A., to civil and judiciable problems, including Cairns, E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). The role of discrimination, debt, and contact. Her research intergroup emotions and empathy in contact between interests also include intergroup forgiveness, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. trust, empathy, and positive psychology. Manuscript under review. Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. miles hewstone is professor of social psychology London: Random House. and Fellow of New College, Oxford University. Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup He has published widely on the topics of contact and prejudice toward immigrants in attribution theory, social cognition, stereotyping, Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the and intergroup relations. His current research moderational role of group salience. Group focuses on the reduction of intergroup confl ict. Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. He is co-founding editor of the European Review Wegner, D. M., & Wenzlaff, R. M. (1996). Mental of Social Psychology, and a former editor of control. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski the British Journal of Social Psychology. He is a

135 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(1)

Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary research interests lie broadly in the areas of Fellow of the British Psychological Society. He stereotyping, prejudice, and intergroup confl ict. was the recipient of the Kurt Lewin Award, for Her current research focuses on how people Distinguished Research Achievement, from the deal with stereotype-inconsistent information, European Association for Experimental Social the potential disconfi rmability of personality Psychology in 2005. traits and cross-community contact, threat, and prejudice in Northern Ireland and India. ed cairns is professor of psychology at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. He greg maio is a professor at Cardiff University, has spent the last thirty years studying the UK. He conducts research on several topics in psychological aspects of political violence in social psychology, including prejudice, attitude relation to the confl ict in Northern Ireland. structure and function, and emotional processes. During this time he has been a visiting scholar at the universities of Florida, Cape Town jared kenworthy is currently an assistant and Melbourne. He is a Fellow of the British professor of psychology at the University of Psychological society and of the American Texas at Arlington. His research interests are Psychological Association (APA) and past in intergroup relations, intergroup contact and president of the Division of Peace Psychology of prejudice reduction, social identity processes, the APA. and social categorization. He teaches social psychology, human relations, and group nicole tausch is a postdoctoral research associate processes at the undergraduate and graduate at the University of Oxford, UK. Her main levels.

136