Global perceptions of state apologies for human rights violations.

State apologies for human rights violations are often seen as a key mechanism in reconciliation processes. Nevertheless, they are often contested as well and have not been embraced equally by countries around the world. This raises questions about their universal value and potential to address or redress past harmdoing by countries. In a study across 33 countries (n = 11,023), we found that people around the world consider apologies by states for human rights violations to be reasonably important but tend to be less supportive of the idea that their own country should apologize for past harmdoing. We found that this discrepancy was amplified in countries with stronger honour norms and a stronger collective sense of victim- rather than perpetratorhood. Moving beyond the decontextualized approach that has prevailed in previous psychological research on this topic, our findings show that people's attitudes towards apologies by their country do not exist in a cultural and social vacuum but depend on the extent to which the broader context affords a critical reflection on past harmdoing. As such, they help explain why some countries have been reluctant to offer apologies, and why such gestures may also be more controversial in some contexts than in others.

Meaningless gestures or pathway to healing and reconciliation? Comparing the perspectives on political apologies in victim and non-victim communities in El Salvador, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom.

Political apologies have been theorized to play an important role in healing and reconciliation processes in post-conflict settings. Whether they actually fulfil this function, however, remains unclear as the voices and perspectives of victim communities have largely been underrepresented in research. To address this, we examined the role of apologies that were offered for the El Mozote massacre (El Salvador), the Jeju 4.3 massacres (Republic of Korea) and Bloody Sunday (United Kingdom), according to members of these communities and the broader public. Although we anticipated that victim community members should find the apology more valuable and meaningful and should, therefore, be more positive about its role in healing and reconciliation processes, we found that this varies across countries. This variation could be explained by people's trust in the country's institutions. Across the samples, we found that the apology was seen as a relatively important gesture. For the apology to be perceived as impactful, however, it had to be seen as a meaningful (i.e. sincere) gesture. Our findings suggest that apologies have a role to play in the aftermath of human rights violations, but that it is essential to take the broader context into account.

Collectively coping with contact: The role of intragroup support in dealing with the challenges of intergroup mixing in residential contexts.

The social identity approach to stress has shown how intragroup support processes shape individuals' responses to stress across health care, workplace, and community settings. However, the issue of how these 'social cure' processes can help cope with the stress of intergroup contact has yet to be explored. This is particularly important given the pivotal role of intergroup threat and anxiety in the experience of contact as well as the effect of contact on extending the boundaries of group inclusion. This study applies this perspective to a real-life instance of residential contact in a divided society. Semi-structured interviews with 14 Catholic and 13 Protestant new residents of increasingly mixed areas of Belfast city, Northern Ireland, were thematically analysed. Results highlight that transitioning to mixed communities was fraught with intergroup anxiety, especially for those coming from 'single identity' areas. Help from existing residents, especially when offered by members of other religious denominations, signalled a 'mixed community ethos' to new residents, which facilitated adopting and sharing this identity. This shared identity then enabled them to deal with unexpected intergroup threats and provided resilience to future sectarian division. New residents who did not adopt this shared identity remained isolated, fearful, and prone to negative contact.