Dokument

Summary:
With the dissertation project two central questions regarding apologies are addressed. Both questions are analyzed from the perspective of those that were transgressed or victimized in a conflict. Firstly, the author wanted to find answers to the question which components of apologies contribute to their effectiveness. To address this question the effect of apologies with varying components on the acceptance of the apology and forgiveness was scrutinized in four experimental studies (Manuscript 1 and 2). Furthermore it was scrutinized by means of two of the four experimental studies (Study 1 of Manuscript 1 and 2) if the answers to the question which content of apologies is effective depends on the severity of the transgression for which the apology is given. Secondly, the author wanted to find out why the content of apologies impacts on their effectiveness. Therefore, mediator variables were analyzed in the four experimental studies to see if they could explain the relationship between the content of apologies and their effectiveness. Two of the four experimental studies evaluated the two central questions of the dissertation project for interpersonal (Manuscript 1) and two for intergroup apologies (Manuscript 2). In a further, non-experimental study (Manuscript 3), an empirical analysis of the violated needs after the experience of interpersonal conflicts was conducted. The aim was to identify further possible mediator variables for the relationship between the content of interpersonal apologies and their effectiveness. Together the five studies of the three manuscripts form the dissertation project. There are five main outcomes of the dissertation project, which extend previous research on apologies. Firstly, addressing the question which content of apologies is effective, it applied to interpersonal and intergroup apologies that their components – operationalized with reference to the models by Blatz et al. (2009) and Kirchhoff et al. (2009) – mattered in terms of the effectiveness of the apologies. In the interpersonal context effectiveness meant an increase in forgiveness and in the intergroup context an increase in the acceptance of the apology. Secondly, even though having only received little support, the finding that the components of the apology contributed to their effectiveness seemed to apply slightly more following transgressions of higher severity. Thirdly, the components that had to be included in the apologies in order to observe a significant change in the measurements of effects were context-dependent. This meant that the combination and number of components in the apologies that were more successful than less complete apologies varied across studies. Fourthly, addressing the question why the content of apologies contributes to their effectiveness, no satisfying answers were found. Neither the reduction of anger in both the interpersonal and the intergroup context nor the fulfillment of the need for empowerment in the intergroup context reliably mediated the relationship between the content of apologies and their effectiveness. Fifthly, six needs categories for transgressed people in the interpersonal context were identified. These need categories can be analyzed in further research as mediator variables for the relationship between the utterances of interpersonal apologies and measurements of effects. The author concludes that despite some shortcomings of the studies, it is possible to consider the results within the framework of apologies and conflict transformation in personal one-on-one settings or in the intergroup setting, respectively. Nonetheless, further research is necessary to validate or if necessary question and revise the results of the dissertation project.

Bibliographie / References

1. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge (pp. 197-230).
2. Thompson, J. (2008). Apology, justice, and respect: A critical defense of political apology. In M.
3. Barkan, E., & Karn, A. (Eds.). (2006). Taking wrongs seriously: Apologies and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X Arzberger, K., Murck, M., & Schumacher, J. (1979). Die Bürger: Bedürfnisse, Einstellungen, Verhalten [The Citizens: Needs, Attitudes, Behavior].
5. Cross-cultural differences in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33 (1), 32-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.10.001
6. The road to forgiveness: A meta- analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (5), 894- 914. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.210.04.002
7. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (1), 116-132.
8. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 Manuscript 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KIRCHHOFF, STRACK, AND WAGNER 110
9. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4 (3), 272-299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
10. Anderson, J. C., Linden, W., & Habra, M. E. (2006). Influence of apologies and trait hostility on recovery from anger. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 29 (4), 347-358.
11. Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 219-227.
12. Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (2), 306 -322.
13. Blatz, C. W., Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2009). Government apologies for historical injustices. Political Psychology, 30 (2), 219-241.
14. Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1198-1206.
15. Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141 (4), 494-508.
16. Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims' responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134 (4), 457-464.
17. Dixon, J. A., Tredoux, C. G., Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. H. (1994). The role of speech accommodation and crime type in attribution of guilt. Journal of Social Psychology, 134 (4), 465-473.
18. Hatch, J. B. (2006). Beyond apologia: Racial reconciliation and apologies for slavery. Western Journal of Communication, 70 (3), 186-211.
19. Staub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and the fulfillment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24 (1), 1-21.
20. Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59 (2), 281-312.
21. Schleien, S., Ross, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Young children's apologies to their siblings. Social Development, 19 (1), 170-186.
22. Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008). The role of acceptance and empowerment in promoting reconciliation from the perspective of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2 (1), 159-186.
23. Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4 (11), 995-1007.
24. Brown, R. P., Wohl, M. J. A., & Exline, J. J. (2008). Taking up offenses: Secondhand forgiveness and group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1406-1419.
25. Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology?: Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7 (2), 169-187.
26. Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is Apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26 (4), 479-504.
27. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies.
29. Bibas, S., & Bierschbach, R. A. (2004). Integrating remorse and apology into criminal procedure. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 85-148.
30. Kirchhoff, J., Strack, M., & Jäger, U. (2009). Apologies: Depending on Offence Severity the Composition of Elements Does Matter. Presentation for the INPsySR-Symposium "Preventing Violent Conflict" at the 11 th ECP. Oslo, Norway.
31. Iyer, A., & Blatz, C. W. (2012). Apology and Reparation. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 309-327). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Byrne, C. (2004). Benefit or burden: Victims' reflections on TRC participation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10 (3), 237-256.
33. Bilsky, W. (1999). Common structures of motives and values: Towards a taxonomic integration of two psychological constructs. (Berichte aus dem Psychologischen Institut IV).
34. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238– 246. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.107.2.238
35. Die UnterstützerInnen in Bosnien und Herzegowina. Dazu gehören die Menschen im Cafe Malboro in Srebrenica, die Menschen in der Galerija B. Smoje in Sarajevo, Ingrid Halbritter, Sandra Khusrawi, Fahir, Tvrtko, Alma, die Familie Osmanović und weitere Personen. Für die Leichtigkeit und das Zuhause fühlen.
36. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3 rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ldt.
37. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Förster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of objective and subjective account components on forgiving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144 (5), 465-485. Summary in German -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145
38. Coicaud, J.-M., & Jönsson, J. (2008). Elements of a road map for a politics of apology. In M. Gibney, R. E. Howard-Hassmann, J.-M. Coicaud & M. Steiner (Eds). The age of apology: Facing up to the past (pp. 77-91). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
39. Čehajić, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and Forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29 (3), 351-367. References in the Discussion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133
40. Griswold, C. L. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Für das Interesse an meinen Dissertationsthema. Für das Vertrauen in mich. Für die Möglichkeit einen Teil meiner Dissertation in Bosnien und Herzegowina zu verbringen.
42. Micha Strack. Für die Anfänge. Für die Idee zu promovieren. Für die wertvolle Unterstützung.
43. Für die Vernetzung über den Tellerrand hinaus. Für die Chance mich weiterzuentwickeln. Für das Vernetzen mit Aleksandra Kaurin und weiteren bedeutenden Menschen.
44. Ulrich Wagner und die AG Sozialpsychologie sowie die AG Methoden der Uni Marburg. Für die wertvolle Unterstützung. Für die inhaltliche Förderung. Für die Möglichkeit während meiner Dissertation in eine sehr schöne und sehr gute Arbeitsgemeinschaft eingebunden zu sein.
45. Hayes, A. F. (in press). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press. http://afhayes.com/introduction-to- mediation-moderation-and- conditional-process-analysis.html Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved September 15, References in the Discussion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References in the Discussion Allan, A., Allan, M. M., Kaminer, D., & Stein, D. J. (2006). Research report: Exploration of the association between apology and forgiveness amongst victims of human rights violations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 87-102.
46. Smith, N. (2008). I was wrong: The meanings of apologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms- Universität.
48. Lazare, A. (2004). On apology. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. European Commission (2011). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council for establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (KOM/2011/0275).
50. Galliker, M. (2009). Psychologie der Gefühle und Bedürfnisse [Psychology of emotions and needs]. Suttgart: W. Kohlhammer GmbH.
51. Gibney, R. E. Howard-Hassmann, J.-M. Coicaud, & N. Steiner (Eds.), The age of apology: Facing up to the past (pp. 31-44). Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
52. Retrieved October, 2012 from http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=CELEX:52011PC0275:DE:NOT Fassin, D. & Rechtman, R. (2009). The Empire of Trauma: An inquiry into the condition of victimhood. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
53. Frijda, N. H. (1994). The lex talionis: On vengeance. In N. E. van de Poll, & S.H.M van Goozen (Eds.), Emotions: Essay on emotion theory (pp. 263- 289). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
54. Gill, K. (2000). The moral functions of an apology. The Philosophical Forum, 31 (1), 11-27. Summary in German -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144
55. Carroll, P. J., Arkin, R. M., Seidel, S. D., & Morris, J. (2009). The relative importance of needs among traumatized and non-traumatized samples. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 373-386. doi: 10.1007/s11031-009- 9139-z Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233- 255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.55.2.258
56. Hareli, S., & Eisikovits, Z. (2006). The role of social emotions accompanying apologies in forgiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 189-197.
57. Obrecht, W. (2005). Umrisse einer biopsychosoziokulturellen Theorie menschlicher Bedürfnisse: Geschichte, Probleme, Struktur, Funktion [Outline of a biopsychosociocultural theory of human needs: History, problems, structure, function]. Skript zur gleichnamigen Veranstaltung an der Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit Zürich [Script for the equally named lecture at the College for Social Work Zürich].
58. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press. References in the Discussion -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134
59. Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (4), 474-487.
60. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims' self- construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113 (1), 37-50.
61. Meier, A. J. (1998). Apologies: What do we know?. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 215- 231.
62. Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Philpot, C. R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5 (1), 70- 100. SUMMARY IN GERMAN Summary in German -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Referenzen Adsit, J. (2009). Apologies: A philosophical and social analysis. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Anderson, J. C., Linden, W., & Habra, M. E. (2006). Influence of apologies and trait hostility on recovery from anger. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 29 (4), 347-358.
63. Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (3), 418-433.
64. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213.
65. Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1991). Development and human needs. In M. Max-Neef (Ed.), Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections (pp. 13-54). Retrieved October 4, 2011 from http://www.max-neef.cl/download/Max-neef_Human_Scale_development.pdf
66. Leunissen, J. M., De Cremer, D., & Reinders Folmer, C. P. (2012). An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness to apologize. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 215-222.

Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten