Katie N. Rotella1, Jennifer A. Richeson1,2, & Dan P. McAdams1 Groups Search for Meaning: Redemption Narratives as a Path to Intergroup Reconciliation Katie N. Rotella1, Jennifer A. Richeson1,2, & Dan P. McAdams1 1Department of Psychology, Northwestern University; 2Northwestern Institute for Policy Research Introduction Measures: Intergroup Forgiveness Scale (Tam et al., 2007) Intergroup Trust Scale (Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008) Willingness to Reconcile (Schnabel et al., 2009) Perceived Outgroup Change (Kahn, Klar, & Roccas, 2010) Results Finding meaning after trauma is associated with better outcomes for both individuals (McAdams, 2001; Wright et al., 2007) and groups (Updegraff et al., 2008). Further, prompting members of a victimized group to engage in redemption narratives, telling a story in which things progress from bad to good and positive lessons are learned from suffering, promotes more forgiveness, outgroup trust, willingness to reconcile, and feelings of empowerment. However, sense-making, or trying to use logic or cause-and-effect to rationalize the events, did not lead to prosocial responses (Rotella, 2013). Will perpetrator group members similarly benefit from engaging in redemption narratives? Former convicts who engage in redemption narratives show more generativity as well as lower recidivism (Maruna, 2001; Maruna et al., 2006), suggesting it is possible. Because redemption narratives involve acknowledging prior bad acts and recognizing them as catalysts for improvement, such narratives may avoid the reduction in collective guilt typically seen when such acts are salient (Doosje et al., 1998) and promote reconciliatory intentions and behaviors. However, in order for meaning-making to be a useful intervention, perpetrators’ redemption narratives must not evoke resentment among victims. While sense-making may be viewed as an attempt at justification from perpetrators, redemption arcs may alternatively be seen as genuinely changed values or viewpoints among perpetrators, promoting reconciliation. Hypotheses Redemption narratives, but not sense-making narratives, should lead to more prosocial responses by perpetrator group members, including collective guilt, willingness to make reparations, willingness to reconcile, and reduced attempts to justify the wrongdoing. Among victims, redemption narratives should similarly promote reconciliation and forgiveness. Results F(2,133) = 3.42, p = .04 F(2,133) = 3.74, p = .03 F(2, 72) = 2.92, p = .06 RDN vs Other Conditions: t(72) = 2.41, p =.02 Participants: 136 White, American participants (73 female) Procedure: Participants read an historical prime regarding the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by the US (perpetrator prime) Writing Prompt: 5 min timed writing Redemption Prompt: describe how these events have transformed America, Americans, or the American national identity or character, and what lessons might have been (or could be) gained by reflecting on this historical experience Sense-Making Prompt: describe how or why these events occurred and try to make sense of the occurrence in terms of logic or cause-and-effect Control Prompt: describe your reaction to this information All essays coded by 2 blind raters for the use redemption and sense-making narratives Measures: Collective Guilt Scale (Branscombe, Slugoski, & Kappen, 2004) Willingness to perform reparative actions (monetary & symbolic; Rotella & Richeson, 2013a) Willingness to Reconcile (Schnabel et al., 2009) Perceived Justification of Wrongdoing (Rotella & Richeson, 2013b) Study 1: Perpetrators F(2,133) = 5.29, p = .006 F(2,133) = 4.16, p = .02 Different letter, number, or symbol subscripts within each row indicate p < .12 *Coding results showed the sense-making prompt did produce significantly more sense-making than the other prompts, while the redemption prompt promoted both sense-making and redemption it elicited more redemption arcs than the other prompts Conclusions Participants: 75 White, American participants (47 female) Procedure: Participants read an historical prime regarding atrocities committed against US POWs in a Japanese camp during WWII (victim prime), ending with a statement that Japanese public opinion expressed regret for the events Manipulation of perceived meaning-making by perpetrators: Control : regret statement only Redemption Arc: a positive change whereby Japan became a world-leader in opposing inhumane treatment of POWs and unethical medical experiments, popular rejection of military, and widespread changes in public opinion due to these events Sense-Making Arc: suggested group makes sense of events by citing precipitating factors, mistaken beliefs, lack of international laws, and contemporary logic Study 2: Victims’ Response Engaging in redemption, but not sense-making, narratives led members of the perpetrator group to respond prosocially to wrongdoing, including feeling collective guilt, being less likely to justify the wrongdoing, and increasing the willingness to make reparations and to reconcile. Fortunately, victims also responded positively to perpetrators engaging in redemption narratives, leading to increased willingness to reconcile, although not necessarily more trust or forgiveness. This williness to reconcile may be due to perceived change in the character of the perpetrator group over time. Thus, redemption narratives may be an intriguing low-cost intervention for post-conflict reconciliation, promoting prosocial responses and being acceptable to those victimized. References Branscombe, N.R., Slugoski, B., & Kappen, D (2004). In Collective guilt: International perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Doosje, A. Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A.S.R. . (1998). JPSP, 75, 872-886. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: APA Books. Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Research in Human Development, 3, 161-184. McAdams, D.P. (2001). Review of General Psychology, 12, 100-122. Rotella, K.N. (2013). Groups’ search for meaning: Meaning-making as a tool in intergroup reconciliation for victims & perpetrators (Doctoral dissertation). Rotella, K.N. & Richeson, J.A. (2013a). Social Psychological & Personality Science, 4, 732-739. Rotella, K.N. & Richeson, J.A. (2013b). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 643-650. Updegraff, J.A., Silver, R.C., & Holman, E.A. (2008). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 95, 709-722. Wright, M.O., Crawford, E., & Sebastian, K. (2007). Journal of Family Violence, 22, 597-608.