1. BLACK PEOPLE’S EVALUATIONS OF COMPUNCTION EMOTIONS Caroline Kamau, University of Kent, UK Roger Giner-Sorolla, University of Kent, UK Emanuele Castano, New School for Social Research, NYC, US Funded by UK ESRC research grant 00-22-1311

2. oGuilt and shame (compunction emotions) are often studied as dominant group members’ responses to injustice oHow might a historically oppressed group respond to a dominant group’s expression of guilt vs. shame? We examined black people’s responses to these emotions in Britain. oMight responses to compunction emotions differ in historical and in present-day scenarios? oWhat are the roles of group factors such as: - System Justification (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Major, 2001; Branscombe & Miron, 2004) - Black identity constructs (e.g. Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Overview

3. Aims oTo examine black people’s evaluations of guilt, shame, compassion and no emotion, in an instance which involves present-day intergroup wrong-doing: disproportionate stop-searching of blacks by the police. oTo test a hypothesis based on Giner-Sorolla et al’s (2005) findings that guilt + reparations coming from an outgroup increased insult and decreased satisfaction among wronged group members. oTo explore the moderating role of blame assigned to the outgroup; for instance, feelings of being insulted by guilt may be more likely amongst low system justifiers (high system blamers) Experiment 1 aims

4. Method oParticipants: 100 black participants obtained from naturalistic settings and public places in London and Kent; mean age was 32.57 years (range 18 to 66). There were 44 males and 50 females oDesign: A naturalistic experiment of mixed design. The between-subjects variable was emotion (guilt vs. shame vs. compassion vs. control) and the within- subjects variable was apology (apology with action and apology with no action). The variable ‘system blame’ (high/low) was created such that: high system blamers = {above-median average system blame plus choice of system entity as the blamed person)}; low system blamers = {below median average system blame plus choice of non-system entity as the blamed person} Repeated-measures dependent variables included satisfaction (with action, no action) and insult (with action, no action) Experiment 1 Method

5. Measures of blame Definition of stop-searches Experiment 1 materials

6. No action condition Action condition Wording varied for shame, compassion and control conditions Experiment 1 materials

7. Results oRepeated measures ANOVA with Emotion as the between subjects factor and Action (Satisfaction) as the repeated factor was not significant (F= 0.178, p=0.911), nor was a similar ANOVA with Action (Insult) as the repeated factor (F=0.183, p=.908). oPaired sampled t-tests show that there was significantly less satisfaction and more insult in the no action condition than in the action condition [overall: action (satisfaction) t= 6.99, p=0.001; action (insult) t = 4.14, p=0.001] Experiment 1 results Table 1: Experiment 1 DV Means by Condition

8. Experiment 1 results o Repeated measures ANOVA with Emotion x System Blame as between subjects factors and action (insult) as the repeated factor : F=, 2.442, p=0.07 Figure 1a and 1b: Interaction effects of Emotion and System Blame on Action (Insult)

9. Aims oSince experiment 1 found no significant effect of compassion on insult and other DVs, this experiment focussed on guilt and shame. oWhereas experiment 1 manipulated the effects of action/no action using a repeated-measures design, this experiment used a between-participants design. oThe articulation of emotions in this experiment was improved, basing guilt/shame statements on the TOSCA (Test of Self Conscious Affect; Tangney et al, 1989). oAs well as measuring blame, system justification was directly measured in this experiment oMeasures of black identity constructs were also improved. Experiment 2

10. Method oParticipants: 80 participants took part, obtained from naturalistic settings in London and Kent. Their mean age was 29.78 years (with a range of 17 to 52 years). There were 30 males and 46 females. oDesign: a naturalistic experiment of between- participants design. There were two manipulated independent variables: emotion (guilt vs. shame) and action (reparations vs. no reparations). Dependent variables included satisfaction, insult, sincerity, etc (see next slide). After data was collected, independent variables were created from system justification, black identity and blame. Experiment 2 method

11. Measures of blame Emotion wording varied by condition. Last sentence absent in no-action conditions Dependent Variables Experiment 2 materials

12. Measure of System Justification Measure of Black Identity constructs

13. Results oTo simplify the 11 DVs, factor analysis was conducted; 4 factors emerged, named as below. Experiment 2 results Table 2: Pattern Matrix from Factor Analysis of the 11 DVs Table 3: Factor Means (average of highlighted variables) by condition

14. oThe interaction between emotion and action has a significant effect on the emotionality factor only (but reparations has no simple effect on it). Experiment 2 results Emotion x Action effect on: Emotionality factor scores; F=4.991, p=0.030 Reconciliation factor scores; F=0.470, p=0.496 Insult factor scores; F=0.032, p=0.858 Change factor scores; F=0.801, p=0.375 Figure 2: Interaction Effect of Emotion x Action on the Emotionality Factor

15. Emotionality factor scores: F=0.495, p=0.485; Reconciliation factor scores: F= 4.08, p=0.049 Insult factor scores: F=0.088, p=0.769; Change factor scores: F=0.311,p=0.580 Experiment 2 results o Is there, as with study 1, an interaction between emotion, action and system blame? The interaction has a significant effect on the Reconciliation factor only. Figure 3a and 3b: Effect of Emotion x Action x System Blame on Reconciliation

16. o There is an interaction effect on the Insult Factor, of Emotion x System Blame. The interaction is marginally significant Experiment 2 results Figure 4: Interaction effect of Emotion x System Blame on Insult oThis suggests that in the guilt condition there is little difference between system blamers and non- system blamers, in terms of insult, whereas in the shame condition, there is substantially higher insult amongst system blamers, compared to non-system blamers. F = 2.84, p=0.098

17. Aims oTo explore evaluations of guilt/shame apologies in a historical scenario (trans-Atlantic slavery) whereby a collective apology is offered (by the EU). oTo test the role of participants’ own ascriptions of collective guilt to Europeans, for trans- Atlantic slavery. oTo test the hypothesis that high black identifiers may be more satisfied with shame, because of intergroup factors. Low identifiers may prefer guilt amongst Europeans, because of system justifying ideologies and more positive attitudes towards the white group. Experiment 3

18. Method oParticipants: 60 participants took part, obtained from naturalistic settings in London and Kent. Their mean age was 28.52 years (with a range of 18 to 56 years). There were 22 males and 37 females. oDesign: The study was a naturalistic experiment of between-participants design. Emotion (guilt vs. shame, both with reparations) was manipulated. Dependent variables included: perceived emotionality of the statement, satisfaction, insult, calmness, perceived status change following the apology, forgiveness, and others (see next slide) Some independent variables were created after data was collected, based on responses to perceived stability, and controllability questions. Participants’ ascriptions of collective guilt to Europeans, their economic system justification, and their black identity, were treated as covariates. Experiment 3 method

19. Overview of trans- Atlantic slavery Hypothetical apology (wording varied by emotion condition Dependent Variables Experiment 3 materials

20. Measure of ascribed collective guilt Measure of economic system justification Items measuring Perceived Stability of cause & Perceived control of actions Continued with measures of black identity (as in exp. 1-2 Experiment 3 materials

21. Results oDescriptives: Mean collective guilt was 59.78% (SD=17.96), mean economic system justification was 34.8% (SD=18.7); 27.3% of participants viewed the cause of slavery as temporary and 72.7% viewed it as permanent; 16.1%, 14.3%, and 69.6% of participants (respectively) viewed Europeans as having no control, some control and total control. oTo simplify data from the 12 DVs, factor analysis was conducted: Experiment 3 results Table 4a: Pattern Matrix of DV factors

22. oSystem justification is positively correlated with F1-Reconciliation, F3-Sincerity, and F4-Emotionality, suggesting positive responses to emotive apologies are associated with system justification Experiment 3 results Table 5: Correlations (Comparing the Guilt and Shame conditions)

23. oInteractions of emotion condition with individual differences on outcomes: oEmotion x Collective guilt (blame) on reconciliation, F = 4.79, p =.03 oHigher blame connected with less reconciliation in guilt but not shame apology – similar to Experiment 2 finding. oEmotion x Identification (IOS) on reconciliation, F = 3.56, p =.07 oHigher identification connected with less reconciliation in shame but not guilt apology. oNo effects on insult oNo interactions between emotion and SJ; overall more reconciliation with more SJ Experiment 3 results

24. oInteraction between emotion and blame/system justification in all three experiments, but difference in affected DV (reconciliation in experiment 3, insult in experiment 1 and 2, as well as reconciliation in experiment 2) - perhaps reconciliatory rather than insult reactions are more relevant in instances of past (rather than ongoing) wrong-doing perhaps reconciliatory rather than insult reactions are more relevant in instances of collective vs. individual apologizing agents oRelevance of black identity in experiment 3: - black-white intergroup processes may be more relevant if the wrong-doing is clearly demarcated in black-white group terms; in experiments 1-2, a number of other categorisations were in play (e.g. police vs. civilian) oRole of ascribed collective guilt in experiment 3: - conceptually, ascribed collective guilt may be synonymous with system blame (as in experiment 1-2). oDiffering role of system justification, depending on whether shame or guilt is being expressed in an apology oMain effect of reparations (or action) in evaluation of accompanying apology in experiments 1-2 Discussion