Perspective Taking and Opinions About Forms of Reparation for Victims of Historical Harm

JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD., THE ATRIUM, SOUTHERN GATE, CHICHESTER P019 8SQ, UK

*** PROOF OF YOUR ARTICLE ATTACHED, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY ***

After receipt of your corrections your article will be published initially within the online version of the journal.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROMPT RETURN OF YOUR PROOF CORRECTIONS WILLENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN THE PUBLICATION OF

YOUR ARTICLE

READ PROOFS CAREFULLY

ONCE PUBLISHED ONLINE OR IN PRINT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY FURTHERCORRECTIONS TO YOUR ARTICLE

This will be your only chance to correct your proof Please note that the volume and page numbers shown on the proofs are for position only

ANSWER ALL QUERIES ON PROOFS (Queries are attached as the last page of your proof.)

List all corrections and send back via e-mail to the production contact as detailed in the covering e-mail,or mark all corrections directly on the proofs and send the scanned copy via e-mail. Please do not send

corrections by fax or post

CHECK FIGURES AND TABLES CAREFULLY

Check sizes, numbering, and orientation of figures

All images in the PDF are downsampled (reduced to lower resolution and file size) to facilitate Internetdelivery. These images will appear at higher resolution and sharpness in the printed article

Review figure legends to ensure that they are complete

Check all tables. Review layout, titles, and footnotes

COMPLETE COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT (CTA) if you have not already signed one

Please send a scanned signed copy with your proofs by e-mail. Your article cannot be publishedunless we have received the signed CTA

OFFPRINTS

25 complimentary offprints of your article will be dispatched on publication. Please ensure that the

correspondence address on your proofs is correct for dispatch of the offprints. If your delivery addresshas changed, please inform the production contact for the journal – details in the covering e-mail.Please allow six weeks for delivery.

Additional reprint and journal issue purchases

Should you wish to purchase a minimum of 100 copies of your article, please visithttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/contact_reprint_sales.html

To acquire the PDF file of your article or to purchase reprints in smaller quantities, please visithttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/ppv-articleselect.html. Restrictions apply to the use ofreprints and PDF files – if you have a specific query, please contact [email protected].

Corresponding authors are invited to inform their co-authors of the reprint options available To purchase a copy of the issue in which your article appears, please contact [email protected]

upon publication, quoting the article and volume/issue details

Please note that regardless of the form in which they are acquired, reprints should not be resold, norfurther disseminated in electronic or print form, nor deployed in part or in whole in any marketing,promotional or educational contexts without authorization from Wiley. Permissions requests should be

directed to mailto: [email protected]

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

Research article

The impact of magnitude of harm and perceived difficulty of makingreparations on group-based guilt and reparation towards victims

of historical harm

MARIETTE BERNDSEN1* AND CRAIG McGARTY2

1School of PsychologyQ1, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA,Australia2School of Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia

Abstract

The present research investigates how reading stories about past mistreatment of children who had been in institutionalcare affects support for reparations, perceived difficulty of reparations and group-based guilt were investigated in twoexperiments. In Study 1 we showed that, when the stories increased in perceived harm, so did the perceived difficulty ofmaking reparations whereas group-based guilt decreased. Furthermore, both perceived difficulty of making reparationsand group-based guilt predicted support for reparation. It was suggested that these findings were due to a naturalconfound between the severity of harm and the difficulty of reparations. Study 2 included a direct manipulation ofperceived difficulty that was intended to weaken or strengthen the ability to make reparations. This study demonstratedstronger group-based guilt when reparations were potentially possible and not when they are impossible. Moreover,support for reparations varied as a function of perceived difficulty of reparations and group-based guilt mediated thatrelationship. The research has two key implications. First, advocates of reparations as a mechanism for reconciliation andcommunity healing need to consider the degree to which reparations are perceived to be possible and consider ways ofaddressing those perceptions. Second, the research provides an experimental demonstration to the power of stories aboutexperience to bolster support for social change. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Around the world there are numerous cases of transgressions by one section of a community against another. On someoccasions this mistreatment has been concealed over many years and then exposed. The focus in this paper is on the effectsof that exposure on the part of the community that was collectively responsible for the wrong doings. In particular, wefocus on a very common form of wrongdoing performed by communities against children in institutional care (that are acause for concern in a number of countries, HREOC, 1997; Senate Community Affairs References Committee (SCARC)2004; Unicef website, 2005). We were interested in reactions of members of the community when they learn about thesetransgressions. It is important to study these reactions because encountering records of negative historical events may leadto unpleasant emotions such as guilt, shame, anger, fear and sadness for the audiences. Such emotions would beparticularly problematic if they do not also motivate a commitment to positive social change and to improve thecircumstances of victims. The present research focuses on these issues by investigating group-based guilt and themotivation to repair the harm done to victims.

Guilt at an individual level is a consequence of immoral behaviour that brings harm to another person (e.g. Baumeister,Stillwell & Heatherton, 1994; Devine & Monteith, 1993; Higgins, 1987) that implies personal responsibility for the cause

European Journal of Social PsychologyEur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1–14 (2009)Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.642

*Correspondence to: Mariette Berndsen, School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, South Australia, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

Q1

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 14 April 2008Accepted 3 April 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:33 PMverified

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

of the harm. With regard to group-based guilt, there has been some debate about whether one can feel guilt for misdeedscommitted by other persons. There is now a growing body of evidence that people are able to experience group-based guilt(Barkan, 2000; Branscombe & Doosje, 2004). Group-based guilt is said to occur as a consequence of (unrepaired butrecognized) past wrong doings of one’s group against another group and/or as a consequence of continuing injustice to adisadvantaged group. For that reason this emotion is called group-based guilt.

Guilt is interesting in part because of the possibility that it can motivate efforts for apology or restitution. In situations ofguilt at the individual level, people often feel motivated to repair the damage done to the harmed person (Baumeister et al.,1994; Roseman, Wiest & Swartz, 1994). Following this reasoning, it is likely that people who feel guilty for the actions oftheir group will be motivated to repair the negative consequences of that action towards the harmed group. Indeed, Doosje,Branscombe, Spears, andManstead (1998) showed that Dutch students reported feeling guilt about the Dutch colonizationof Indonesia in the past and that group-based guilt predicted commitment to financial compensation to Indonesians. InAustralia, McGarty, Pedersen, Leach, Mansell, Waller, and Bliuc (2005) found that group-based guilt was a predictor ofsupport for a formal apology by the Australian Government to Indigenous Australians. According to Barkan (2000), anapology implies an acknowledgement of both wrongdoing and consequences of these wrongs. Like apology, reparationincludes also recognition of wrongdoings and it refers to material compensation. In the present research therefore, we willrefer to ‘reparation’ that includes both an explicit apology and material restitution for suffering.

The present research investigated group-based guilt and opinion on reparation towards a specific group of victims inAustralia who were, as children, removed from their families and still suffer from the ongoing negative consequences ofthis practice. This group should not be confused with the Indigenous Australians who were removed from their families(the Stolen Generations) or the British children who were shipped to Australia. These other groups (especially the StolenGenerations) have attracted much greater media coverage than the Forgotten Australians. This status of being out of thelimelight is conveyed by the title ‘Forgotten Australians’ but this if anything undersells the lack of visibility of this largegroup of children. It is not so much that the plight of these people was forgotten as that for most Australians they are simplyunknown.

These distinctive and lamentable conditions provide an extraordinary test case for social psychologists interested in thelink between group-based guilt and support for reparations. Unlike other cases where there has been traumatic andunrepaired harm committed on a group of people by governments and their agencies in the past and a subsequent call forefforts to repair that harm in the present day the example of the Forgotten Australians is unconfounded by a clear ethnic orracial distinction between the victims and perpetrators. The Forgotten Australians were drawn from the dominant whitemajority community in Australia and we are therefore in this case able to rule out racial or ethnic tension or sensitivities asa factor in the willingness (or lack of willingness) to repair the harm done (that might be a factor in the treatment of theIndigenous Stolen Generations). Secondly, the obscure status of the Forgotten Australians means that most Australians areunfamiliar with their stories, and are less likely to have developed rehearsed positions about the treatment of the group.This historical feature means that it is possible to experimentally vary familiarity with this group in a naturalistic way byeducating our participants about the Forgotten Australians. Through understanding this special case we hope to develop abetter understanding of the processes of guilt and reparation as they apply more generally.

STUDY 1

Around 550 000 white Australian children were removed from their families between 1920 and 1970. These children wereplaced in orphanages, or residential institutions called Homes, or other forms of out-of-home care for a variety of reasonsincluding being orphaned, being born to a single mother, or parental divorce, poverty, or incompetence to raise theirchildren. The stories from these children in out-of-home care described emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Their storiesare also characterized by neglect, humiliation and deprivation of food and education. The State Governments and religiousauthorities were officially responsible for the children, however, ‘given that State Governments contributed nothing orvery little to non-government children’s homes, they effectively relinquished their chances to oversee the activities orstandards of the homes’ (SCARC, 2004, p. 29). Due to this negative history and the perceived injustice to the ForgottenAustralians, today’s Australians may experience group-based guilt and support reparation towards them. The purpose ofthe present study is to investigate these reactions.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1–14 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

2 Mariette Berndsen and Craig McGarty 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

In August 2004 SCARC published a report named ‘Forgotten Australians’. The first recommendation made by thecommittee in their report involves a formal apology towards the Forgotten Australians was that ‘the CommonwealthGovernment issue a formal statement acknowledging, on behalf of the nation, the hurt and distress suffered by manychildren in institutional care, particularly the children who were victims of abuse and assault; and apologizing for theharm caused to these children’ (p. xix). Moreover, the committee recommended that ‘the Commonwealth Governmentestablish and manage a national reparations fund for victims of institutional abuse in institutions and out-of-home caresettings’ (p. xx).

In this context it is important to emphasize that the recommendations of the committee are not only based on theForgotten Australians’ traumatic childhood experiences but also based on the ongoing negative consequences for thisgroup. Nowadays, many care leavers suffer from low self-esteem, lack of confidence, depression, fear and distrust, anger,shame, guilt, social anxieties, phobias and recurring nightmares. These emotional problems have resulted in an abnormallylarge percentage of suicides among care leavers (SCARC, 2004). The report also noted that many care leavers who haveexperienced multiple relationships and failed marriages indicated to feel an inability to initiate and maintain stable, lovingrelationships. Many do not feel trust in relationships and live an isolated existence. Moreover, Forgotten Australians’childhood experiences and the ongoing negative consequences had also a strong impact on their children and families(SCARC, 2004). Until now, the Australian Federal Government have not made a formal apology to Forgotten Australians,and it has also refused to apologize to the British children who were taken away from their parents and brought toAustralia, despite the recommendations in the report ‘Lost Innocents: Righting the Record’ (SCARC, 2001). However, it isworth emphasizing that very recently (13 February 2008) the new Government has apologized to the Indigenous StolenGenerations, 11 years after the report ‘Bringing them home’ (HREOC, 1997).

Given both the extensive media coverage involving the Stolen Generation and the lack of familiarity that mostAustralians about the Forgotten Australians, it is possible that exposure to the mistreatment of the Forgotten Australianscould have an impact on today’s Australians. Given that this issue provides us with an ideal opportunity to explore thedynamics of guilt we were particularly interested in processes which might buffer against or otherwise diminish guilt. We turnnow to two processes which involve (a) the intensity of the perceived harm and (b) the perceived difficulty ofmaking reparations.

With regard to the intensity of the perceived harm, one would intuitively expect that when the magnitude of theperceived harm increases, so does guilt. Berndsen, Van der Pligt, Doosje, and Manstead (2004) provided evidence for thisidea in a study of individual guilt. They found that feelings of guilt increased as a function of the intensity of perceivedharm done to another person. Moreover, Doosje et al. (1998) provided some support for this idea on a group level. Theseauthors presented Dutch participants with presentations of the past transgressions of Dutch people that were eitherunambiguously unfavourable, unambiguously favourable, or ambiguous (favourable and unfavourable). They found amarginally significant effect of their manipulation on group-based guilt with the biggest difference between the favourableand unfavourable history presentations indicating relatively more guilt in the unfavourable presentation. We wouldtherefore expect that when the perceived harm is less intense, reported guilt would be lower than when the perceived harmis more intense. We explored these ideas by adapting the methodology of Doosje et al. (1998). In the present study, we createda ’negative history condition’ by presenting two unambiguously unfavourable presentations of the Forgotten Australians’circumstances, and a ’mixed history condition’ by presenting both an unfavourable and favourable presentation.

A second process that might increase or decrease guilt, involves the perceived difficulty of making reparations, Brehm’s(1999) theory of emotional intensity and Schmitt, Branscombe, & Brehm (2004) analysis involving factors that caninfluence the intensity of guilt, are important. Brehm’s theory postulates that emotional reactions increase as a function ofdeterrents (reasons for not feeling that emotion) but only up to a point beyond which they start to decrease as the deterrentsbecome greater. In the case of group-based guilt, Schmitt, Miller, Branscombe and Brehm (2007) have argued that theperceived difficulty of making reparations affects group-based guilt in this curvilinear manner. That is, when reparationsare easy to accomplish, one needs little motivation to make reparations and guilt should be low. However, when reparationsare more difficult to make guilt should increase, because more motivation is needed to make reparations.

In this theory the inflection or tipping point at which the emotional reaction is most intense (and beyond which it issuppressed rather than enhanced by the deterrents) is determined by the importance of obtaining the goal relevant for thatemotion. In the case of group-based guilt the relevant goal is restoring a just relationship with the group of victims. Actionssuch as apology and reparation might produce such justice but these actions may also be associated with deterrents. It maybe very difficult or costly to make reparations or the scale of the harm may be so great or the victims may be difficult (oreven impossible) to locate.


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp

Group-based guilt, harm, perceived difficulty, reparation 3 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

Thus guilt should increase to a maximum level of intensity which is established by the importance of makingreparations. When effort required to make reparations goes beyond this level of importance guilt should decline becausedifficulty outweighs the importance of making reparations. In other words, when it is not sufficiently important to makereparations, guilt should decrease. Schmitt et al. (2007) found evidence for this curvilinear relationship between perceiveddifficulty and guilt in the case of men’s experiences of group-based guilt as a result of their benefits relative towomen. Mencould repair the harm done to women by collecting amounts of signatures. Men in the low difficulty (five signatures) andhigh difficulty (100 signatures) condition reported lower group-based guilt than men in the moderate difficulty condition(50 signatures).

Based on the findings of Berndsen et al. (2004) and Doosje et al. (1998), onewould expect that a person confronted withtwo negative stories would feel more guilty than someone confronted with a positive and negative account of their groups’harm doing to another group. Thus the perceived harm done to the Forgotten Australians would be stronger in theunfavourable history condition than in the mixed condition. We therefore expected, on the one hand, that as the magnitudeof the transgression increases (as in the unfavourable condition), group-based guilt would become stronger whereas guiltwould be lower in the mixed condition because of the less extreme mistreatment. On the other hand, relative to a mixedhistory account, reading two unfavourable stories can increase the perceived difficulty of making reparations becauseextreme mistreatments are perceived as more harsh with longer-lasting effects, which are more difficult to repair than theeffects of less extreme mistreatments. Following Schmitt et al.’s (2004) analysis group-based guilt should then be lower inthe unfavourable condition than in the mixed condition. Thus, on the one hand we expected that, as the magnitude of theharm increases so does group-based guilt, on the other hand it is possible that the severity of harm decreases group-based guiltis due to increased perceived difficulty of making reparations. Thus the first goal of this study was to explore these two ideas.

The second goal of this study was to examine reactions towards support for reparations. Doosje et al. (1998) found thatgroup-based guilt predicted personal willingness to financial compensation and McGarty et al. (2005) showed that group-based guilt predicted support for an apology (though it is an ambiguous predictor of other responses, Iyer, Leach, &Crosby, 2003). In line with these findings, we expected that if the two history conditions do not differ in group-based guilt,they would also not differ in support for reparation. However, if group-based guilt is stronger in one condition relative tothe other, more support for reparation would occur in the corresponding condition.

In addition, Doosje et al. (1998) had observed that low national identifiers reported more group-based guilt in theambiguous condition than high national identifiers did whereas this effect did not occur in the unfavourable historycondition. We examined whether national identification played a moderating role in an Australian context.

Furthermore, before it was mentioned that the function of group-based guilt is to re-establish a just relationship with thevictims of harm (Schmitt et al., 2004), in this case the Forgotten Australians. We therefore asked participants to indicatethe importance of a harmonious relationship with the Forgotten Australians. Finally, it is relevant to note here that thisstudy does not explore the full range of variations in the strength of deterrents that is anticipated in Brehm’s (1999) theorythat also postulates cubic relationships. We explored a comparison between a point where deterrents are moderate (and thegoal of making reparations is potentially achievable) and a point where the reparations were very difficult.

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 54 students at an Australian university. Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained.In this sample, 78% were female and 22% were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 61 (M! 24.11; SD! 10.31). Allparticipants had Australian nationality and had lived most of their lives in Australia. They were randomly assigned to oneof two levels of history condition: unfavourable or mixed.

Stimulus Materials and Procedure

Participants were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in which they indicated how strongly they identifiedwith Australians. National identification was assessed by four items such as ‘I see myself as an Australian’, ‘I identify withother Australians (adapted from Doosje et al., 1998) on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). These four


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

items yielded a reliable scale (Cronbach’s a .83) and an average identification score was computed. Next, participantsindicated to what extent they consider themselves informed about the Forgotten Australians on a scale ranging from 1 (notat all) to 9 (very much). The term Forgotten Australians was defined as ‘the white children who were removed from theirfamily to live in institutions’. Before reading stories told by Forgotten Australians, participants were presented with thefollowing information:

From theQ2 1920s to the 1970s, about 500 000 Australian children were removed from their family. The Governmentwanted to remove them for reasons including being orphaned, being born to a single mother, divorce, family povertyand domestic violence. The children were placed in orphanages, special homes for numerous children and industrialschools (large and like barracks). This was done to give them better care, health protection, good education and betterchances for the future.

This was followed by the manipulation of history condition. In the mixed history condition it was written:

Several Australians reported positive stories in line with the Government’s purposes. As an example, you will read astory from the report about the treatment and care experienced by a child in out-of-home care. However, the experiencesof several other Australians deviate from the Government’s goals. These care leavers told of emotional and physicalabuse, humiliation and lack of food and education. Because of these experiences, an apology by the NationalGovernment to these Forgotten Australians is often seen as a first step in acknowledging the hurt and distress sufferedby these children in institutional care. As an example, you will also read a negative story from the report.

Next, participants read one positive and one negative story about life in a Home. In the unfavourable history condition itwas stated that:

However, the experiences of many Australians deviate from the Government’s goals. Many care leavers told ofemotional and physical abuse, humiliation and lack of food and education. Because of these experiences, an apology bythe National Government to these Forgotten Australians is often seen as a first step in acknowledging the hurt anddistress suffered by many children in institutional care. As an example, you will read two stories from the report aboutthe treatment and care experienced by children in out-of-home care.

Participants read two negative stories about life in a Home. The negative story in the mixed condition was identical toone of the negative stories in the unfavourable condition. All stories are available on the Australian Parliament website(2004). For ethical reasons we omitted the names of the Homes. An example of a negative story and the positive story arepresented in the Appendix.

After reading the stories, we checked the manipulation of group history by asking participants how the Australians hadbehaved toward the children in the institutions on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 9 (very positive). All ofthe following dependent variables were measured on 9-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (stronglyagree). Group-based guilt was assessed by two items (from Doosje et al., 1998): ‘I feel guilty about the negative things thatAustralians did to the Forgotten Australians (FA) in the past’ and ‘I feel guilty about the bad outcomes received by the FAwhich were brought about by Australians in the past’, r! .79, p< 001.We computed one single mean score varying from 1to 9. Four items were used to measure respondents’ opinion on reparation by Australians to the FA: ‘(a) Australians shouldacknowledge their wrongdoings to the FA, (b) Australians should repair the damage done to the FA, (c) Australians are notresponsible for the harsh treatment of the FA and (d) an apology by the National Government is not necessary’. Afterrecoding items (c) and (d), Cronbach’s a for the four items was .85. We computed one opinion score varying from 1 to 9.Next, participants responded to the question ‘it is important for me to achieve a harmonious relationship betweenAustralians and the Forgotten Australians’. The final question was ‘I think that it is difficult to make reparations to theForgotten Australians’ which was intended to measure the perceived difficulty of making reparations.

Results and Discussion

We found that participants in both conditions reported being relatively unfamiliar with the Forgotten Australians(unfavourable conditionM! 4.13, mixed conditionM! 3.96, t(52)! 0.33, ns). As anticipated, the overall (M! 4.04) andgeneral familiarity with the issue of the Forgotten Australians was relatively low. We also checked whether the

Q2


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:36 PMchecked

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

manipulation of group history was successful. As anticipated, participants assessed the behaviours of Australians morenegatively in the unfavourable condition (M! 1.29) than in the mixed condition (M! 3.91), t(52)! 8.71, p< .001. Therewere no differences between conditions in the extent to which a harmonious relationship with the Forgotten Australianswas important for them (unfavourable history condition M! 6.52; mixed history condition M! 6.43, t(52)! 0.18, ns).The overall positive responses may have resulted from socially desirable responses because there was no effort involved inachieving the harmonious relationship. In the second study we therefore ask participants howwilling they personally are toapologize to and to support the Forgotten Australians.

Previously, we mentioned that Doosje et al. (1998) had found that relative to high national identifiers, low identifiersreported more group-based guilt in the ambiguous (mixed) condition while this difference did not occur in theunfavourable condition. We investigated whether national identification moderated group-based guilt in a similar way.After centring the predictors a product term was computed. A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with nationalidentification and history condition entered in the first step and their interaction in the second step. The analysis revealedthat the total amount of variance in group-based guilt was 13.4%. However, the interaction between history condition andnational identification did not add a significant amount guilt variance (2%). In addition, the correlations between nationalidentification on the one hand and perceived difficulty, guilt and support for reparation on the other hand, were non-significant. Thus in contrast to Doosje et al. (1998), we found no evidence for the moderating role of national identificationon the relationship between history and group-based guilt. A possible explanation for the differential findings is given byMcGarty & Bliuc (2004) who argued that current non-Indigenous Australians are a broad group coming from variousbackgrounds, which might have a different impact on the meaning of national identification in contrast to the situation inthe Netherlands where Dutch heritage is well established. Moreover, McGarty et al. (2005) found that identification withAustralia was not a predictor of group-based guilt.

Statistical analyses revealed significantly lower guilt and support for reparation in the unfavourable history condition(M! 4.39, M! 6.34, respectively) than in the mixed condition (M! 6.13, M! 7.38, respectively), t(52)! 2.80, p< .01and t(52)! 2.14, p< .05, respectively). Furthermore, the perceived difficulty of making reparations was higher in theunfavourable condition (M! 5.42) relative to the mixed condition (M! 4.26), t(52)! 2.05, p< .05. Mean scores for alldependent variables are shown in Table 1. These findings seem consistent with Schmitt et al.’s (2004) analysis. Based ontheir research, we predicted that when the magnitude of harm increases group-based guilt would decrease which would bemediated by perceptions of increased difficulty to make reparations. To test this idea further, we conducted a mediationanalysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The first regression analysis showed that history was a significant predictor of group-based guilt, ß! .36 and explained 13.1% of the variance in group-based guilt, F(1, 52)! 7.82, p< .01. The secondregression analysis revealed that history was a significant predictor of perceived difficulty, ß!".27 explaining 7.5% of thevariance, F (1, 52)! 4.19, p< .05. The third regression analysis included both history and perceived difficulty whichexplained 35.9% of the variance in group-based guilt, F(2, 51)! 14.31, p< .001. Perceived difficulty was a significantpredictor of group-based guilt (ß!".50, p< .001) and history condition was marginally significant (ß! .23, p! .06).Thus after controlling for the perceived difficulty of making reparations, the relationship between history condition andgroup-based guilt was somewhat weakened. We then conducted a bootstrapping test (Hayes, 2008) to estimate the indirecteffect of the history manipulation on group-based guilt, via perceived difficulty. This test revealed a marginally significanteffect, z! 1.81, p< .07.

Table 1. Mean scoresQ3 (and standard deviations) for dependent variables as a function of history (Study 1)

Variable

History condition

Unfavourable (n! 31) Mixed (n! 23)

Informed about FAa 4.13 (1.94) 3.96 (1.82)Australians’ behaviour to FA### 1.29 (0.78) 3.91 (1.41)Importance harmonious rela 6.52 (1.69) 6.43 (1.56)Perceived difficulty# 5.42 (2.09) 4.26 (2.00)Group-based guilt## 4.39 (2.39) 6.13 (2.09)Opinion reparation# 6.34 (2.03) 7.38 (1.32)

Note: Scores could range from 1 to 9, with higher numbers indicating stronger responses. #p< .05; ##p< .01; ###p< .001. ans.

Q3


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:37 PMchecked

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

These results indicate that both perceived difficulty of making reparations and history predicted group-based guilt.However, the positive relationship between history and group-based guilt shows that contrary to our expectation, guilt wasstronger in the mixed rather than in the unfavourable story condition. This is a remarkable finding that merits closeattention.

A partial explanation for this result is the observation that perceived difficulty of making reparations was relativelyhigher in the unfavourable story condition. However, we cannot assess whether this observation of difficulty influencedparticipants’ thoughts involving the possibility of providing reparations. It is possible that participants in the unfavourablehistory condition could have thought that it is impossible or unreasonably difficult, rather than merely difficult, to makereparations to such a huge group of victims. In the mixed story condition, however, participants might have considered thatreparations are possible because reading a positive story may have suggested that the pool of possible victims meritingreparation is manageably small. This effect may have been a consequence of the limited knowledge that the participantshad about the Forgotten Australians. This can be contrasted with the study by Doosje et al. (1998)Q4 where the Dutchparticipants could scarcely fail to be aware that Indonesia was a developing nation where the vast majority of thepopulation faced great economic hardship.

Thus the magnitude of the harm could have affected the potential reparability of the harm. If so, the magnitude of harmand the difficulty of reparations may have been confounded in the manipulation of history that we adapted from Doosjeet al. (1998). The subtle nature of the confound may also explain why we found relatively less guilt in the unfavourablecondition whereas Doosje et al. found relatively more guilt in that condition (though they did not measure perceiveddifficulty of making reparations). In the second study, we use a new manipulation of reparability. In any case, this is atimely reminder that virtually identical manipulations can have different effects in different situations because of thedifferent meanings attached to those manipulations. In this case we feel that the work of Schmitt et al. (2004) provides auseful platform for exploring these complexities.

With regard to the relationship between group-based guilt and support for reparation, guilt is found to be a predictor ofsupport for financial compensation (Doosje et al., 1998) and support for an apology (McGarty et al., 2005). Thus group-based guilt predicts support for reparation. Based on this and the result of our first mediation analysis that perceiveddifficulty partly mediated the relationship between history and guilt, we tested the following path model. The magnitude ofharm described in the history conditions affects the perceived difficulty of making reparations which predicts group-basedguilt which in turn predicts support for reparation. Because of the small sample size, we did not use structural equationmodelling to test the four variable chain. Rather, we decomposed the hypothesized model by testing it with two separatepath analyses (each involving three variables).

Based on the finding that perceived difficulty partly mediated the relationship between history and guilt, we expectedfor the first path analysis that perceived difficulty of making reparations would (partly) mediate the relationship betweenhistory condition and support for reparation. Based on the findings that guilt predicts support (Doosje et al., 1998;McGartyet al., 2005), we expected for the second path analysis that group-based guilt would mediate the relationship betweenperceived difficulty and support for reparations. The first path analysis supported our expectation. Simple regressionrevealed that history was a significant predictor of support for reparation, ß! .29, explaining 8.1% of the variance insupport, F(1, 52)! 4.59, p< .05, and we have shown above that history was a significant predictor of perceived difficulty.A regression analysis with history, perceived difficulty, and support for reparation explained 28.8% of the variance, F(2,51)! 10.32, p< .001. Perceived difficulty (ß!".47, p< .001) was a significant predictor of support for reparation buthistory was no longer a predictor of support for reparation (ß! .16, ns). Thus controlling for perceived difficulty weakenedthe relationship between history condition and support for reparation substantially. A bootstrapping test (Hayes, 2008)revealed that the indirect effect of history on support for reparation via difficulty of reparations was marginally significant,z! 1.83, p< .07.

The second expectation (second path analysis) was partly supported. Simple regressions showed that perceiveddifficulty of making reparations was a significant predictor of support for reparation, ß!".52, explaining 26.6% of thevariance, F(1, 52)! 18.82, p< .001, and of group-based guilt, ß!".56, explaining 31.2% of the variance, F(1,52)! 23.61, p< .001. A regression analysis including perceived difficulty, guilt, and support for reparation explained35.8% of the variance, F(2, 51)! 14.25, p< .001. Both perceived difficulty (ß!".31, p< .05) and guilt (ß! .37, p< .01)were significant predictors of support for reparation. A bootstrapping test (Hayes, 2008) showed that the indirect effect ofperceived difficulty of reparations on support for reparation via group-based guilt was significant, z!"2.41, p< .05. Thusconsistent with previous research, support for reparation is predicted by group-based guilt. However, the present study also

Q4


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:37 PMchecked

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

showed that support is predicted by the perceived difficulty of making reparations. It is possible that this finding is dueto the confounded effects of the stories. If the magnitude of the harm affected thoughts about the potential reparability ofthe harm, then the perceived difficulty could have affected support for reparations such that the impossibility of reparationslowered support. A more straightforward manipulation of reparability as in Study 2 could shed more light on this issue.

Taken together, a first novel contribution of the present study is the finding that reading two negative stories attenuatedgroup-based guilt. This finding is important because it demonstrates that the manipulation of history can have differenteffects depending on the context. Whereas in Doosje et al.’s (1998) study group-based guilt tended to be the highest in theunfavourable history condition, the present study shows the opposite effect. This observation may be especially relevantfor researchers who want to use a history manipulation to study its effects on group-based guilt. To put the point bluntly,the effects of a negative history depend not only on the scale of the harm but also on the degree to which it is possible toameliorate or repair that harm. A second novel contribution is that the relatively low experiences of group-based guilt afterreading two negative stories was partly due to difficulties with repairing the harm done to the victims. These findingssupport Schmitt et al.’s (2004) postulate that perceived difficulty of making reparations affects the intensity of group-basedguilt. A third and final novel contribution includes the observation that reading two negative stories undermined supportfor reparation that was predicted by both perceived difficulty of making reparations and group-based guilt. However, somecaution with these findings is recommended because of the possible confounded effects of the stories. In the second study,we disentangle the magnitude of harm and the (im)possibility to repair that harm by including a separate manipulation ofreparability.

STUDY 2

The purpose of Study 2 was twofold. First, we investigated the idea that perceived difficulty of making reparations to theForgotten Australians would affect opinions about reparation and reported group-based guilt by using a directmanipulation of perceived difficulty which allows us to distinguish between the magnitude of the harm and the reparabilityof harm. That is, besides the manipulation of story content, we manipulated the difficulty of making reparations byproviding participants with information describing that reparability to the Forgotten Australians was either possible orimpossible due to the political and social system. We argue that this information would affect the perceived difficulty ofmaking reparations such that being informed that reparations are potentially achievable, would lead to less perceiveddifficulty than knowing that reparations are impossible. Following Schmitt et al.’s (2004) analysis, group-based guiltwould then be relatively low in this situation. However, knowing that reparations are potentially achievable woulddecrease the perceived difficulty to make them which would lead to relatively high guilt scores. In sum, we predicted thatwhen reparations are said to be impossible, group-based guilt should be lower than when reparations are believed to bepossible (prediction 1a).

Based on our earlier reasoning that as the magnitude of harm increases so does group-based guilt, we expected that guiltwould be higher in the unfavourable history condition than in the mixed condition (prediction 1b).

Besides participants’ opinions about support for reparation by Australians, Study 2 also measured personal willingnessto support reparations towards the Forgotten Australians. Straightforwardly, we expected that this willingness would bestronger when reparations are possible rather than impossible because reparations are then ruled out (prediction 2a).Moreover, we expected that personal willingness to support reparations would be stronger in the unfavourable historycondition than in the mixed condition (prediction 2b).

The second purpose of the present study was to examine changes in feeling informed about the Forgotten Australiansand participants’ opinions about support for reparations. We therefore measured feelings of being informed about theForgotten Australians and support for reparation before and after reading the stories. We expected that after reading thestories, support for reparation would increase when reparability was said to be possible, but not when it was impossiblebecause the opportunity for reparations is undermined by that framing (prediction 3a). We also expected that support forreparation would increase more strongly in the unfavourable history condition than in the mixed condition (prediction 3b).Based on the relative unfamiliarity with the Forgotten Australians, we anticipated that reading actual stories wouldincrease feelings of being informed (prediction 4).

In Study 1, we found that support for reparation was predicted by both perceived difficulty of making reparations andgroup-based guilt. We argued that the contribution of perceived difficulty could have been due to the confounded effect of


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

the history manipulation. Consistent with previous research on group-based guilt as a predictor of support (Doosje et al.,1998; McGarty et al., 2005), we anticipated that group-based guilt would mediate the relationship between the reparabilitycondition and support for reparation by Australians (prediction 5a). We also anticipated that group-based guilt wouldmediate the relationship between history condition and support for reparation by Australians (prediction 5b). Likewise, weexpected that group-based guilt would mediate the relationship between the reparability condition and personalwillingness to support reparations (prediction 6a) and between history condition personal willingness to supportreparations (prediction 6b).

Taken together, we predicted an effect of reparability and of history such that participants in the possible-reparationconditions and in the unfavourable history conditions would report more group-based guilt (prediction 1a and 1b,respectively), more personal willingness to make reparations (prediction 2a and 2b, respectively), and a stronger positivechange in opinion on reparation by Australians (prediction 3a and 3b, respectively) than participants in the impossible-reparation conditions and in the mixed history conditions. We also anticipated that all participants would feel moreinformed about the Forgotten Australians after reading two stories (prediction 4). Furthermore, we predicted that group-based guilt would both mediate the relationship between reparability and support for reparation by Australians afterreading (prediction 5a), and between reparability and personal willingness to support reparation (prediction 6a). Finally,we predicted that group-based guilt would both mediate the relationship between history condition and support forreparation by Australians after reading (prediction 5b), and between reparability and personal willingness to supportreparation (prediction 6b).

Method

Participants and Design

Participants were 89 Australian university students. Participation was voluntary and informed consent was obtained. Forthis sample, 70% were female and 30% were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 44 (M! 23.18; SD! 7.23). Allparticipants were Australian citizens and lived most of their life in Australia. The study had a 2$ 2 factorial design,involving history (unfavourable vs. mixed) and reparability (possible vs. impossible). Participants were randomly assignedto one of the four experimental conditions.

Stimulus Materials and Procedure

Participants were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts, whichwill be outlined below.

National Identification, Familiarity and Opinion at Time 1

These items were the same as those in Study 1. The four items measuring national identification yielded a Cronbach’s a of.86 and the four items measuring opinion yielded a Cronbach’s a of .75.

Stories and Manipulation of Reparability

The stories were the same as in Study 1. After reading the two stories (either two negative stories or one negative and onepositive story), all participants read the following information:

Nowadays there are many debates on reparation (e.g. material compensation and apologies) towards victims who stillsuffer from historical wrongdoings. These debates occur all over the world, and in some cases victims and theirdescendants have received compensation and restitution for their maltreatment.


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

Next, the manipulation of reparability followed (with the manipulation for the impossible condition in parentheses):

With regard to the Forgotten Australians (however), it is possible (too difficult) to make (any form of) reparations. Themain reason for this lies in the political and social system: at the time that Australian children were removed from theirfamilies, their names were (not) recorded. Because of this, it is easy (impossible) to find out who is entitled to reparationfor the bad treatment in orphanages and special children homes. Thus, due to the rules of the political and social system,the group of Forgotten Australians can (not) be helped in their suffering.

Items Presented After Reading the Story

We checked the manipulation of history content with the same items as in Study 1. Two items assessed whether themanipulation of making reparations was successful: ’How able are Australians to make reparations to the FA’ and ’Howable are Australians to alleviate the suffering from the FA’. Responses were given on a 9-point scales ranging from 1 (not atall) to 9 (very much). The correlation between the items was r! .64, p< .001.Group-based guiltwas assessed by the sametwo items as in Study 1, r! .84, p< .001. Personal willingness to make reparations was measured by two items (adaptedfrom Doosje et al., 1998):‘I think I should apologize to FA for the bad things done to them by Australians’ and ‘I shouldsupport efforts to make up for Australians maltreatment of FA’, r! .66, p< .001. These items were measured on 9-pointscales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The four items involving Opinion at time 2 produced aCronbach’s a of .76. For each of the correlated items, we computed one single mean score varying from 1 to 9.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation Checks

The manipulation of history content was successful. An ANOVAwith reparability and history as between-subjects factorsrevealed a main effect of history, F(1, 84)! 97.45, p< .001. Participants assessed the behaviours of Australians morenegatively in the unfavourable condition (M! 1.50) than in the mixed condition (M! 4.05). The analysis revealed noother significant effects. The manipulation of reparability was also successful. Participants evaluated the ability ofAustralians to make reparations to be higher in the possible condition (M! 6.55) than in the impossible condition(M! 2.90), F(1, 85)! 169.20, p< .001. There were no other significant effects observed. In other words, the perceiveddifficulty of making reparations is higher in the impossible than in the possible-reparation condition.

Main Analyses

We predicted that participants in the possible-reparation condition and in the unfavourable history condition would reportmore group-based guilt (predictions 1a and 1b), a stronger personal willingness to support reparations (predictions 2a and2b), and a stronger positive change in their opinion on reparation by Australians (predictions 3a and 3b) than participants inthe impossible-reparation condition and in the mixed history condition. Mean scores for group-based guilt, personalwillingness and opinion-on-reparation by Australians for the four conditions are shown in Table 2. The predictions forgroup-based guilt and personal willingness were partly supported. Participants in the possible-reparation conditionreported more group-based guilt (overall M! 5.10) than those in the impossible-reparation condition (M! 3.97), F(1,85)! 4.92, p< .05, partial h2! .06. Personal willingness to make reparations was marginally significant higher (overallM! 5.58) in the possible-reparation condition than in the impossible-reparation condition (overall M! 4.79), F(1,85)!3.78, p< .06, partial h2! .04. The corresponding predictions for the manipulation of history were not supported. Bothmain effects of history on group-based guilt and on personal willingness were not significant, F(1, 85)! 1.14, ns and F(1,85)! 1.12, ns, respectively. Both analyses revealed no significant interactions between reparability and history.

We performed an ANOVA on participants’ opinion-on-reparation by Australians scores before and after reading thestories with history and reparability as between-subjects factors and the two occasions of measurement as within-subjectsfactor. The analysis revealed a significant interaction between reparation condition and the within-subjects factor,


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:38 PMline 46 and 48. The h must be the Greek letter eta: η

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

F(1, 83)! 7.94, p< .01, partial h2! .09. As predicted, participants’ opinions on support for reparation by Australiansbecame more positive after reading, F(1, 83)! 9.74, p< .01, partial h2! .11, in the possible-reparation condition (overallM! 6.54) than in the impossible-reparation condition (overall M! 5.85). The opinions before reading did notsignificantly differ between the reparation conditions (possible condition overall M! 5.93, impossible condition overallM! 6.00). The corresponding prediction for the manipulation of history was not supported, F(1, 83)! 2.53, ns. Theinteraction between history and reparability was also not significant.

Taken together, these findings show that being powerless in making reparations towards Forgotten Australiansincreases perceived difficulty of reparations and decreases group-based guilt, general support for reparation byAustralians, and personal willingness to support reparations. Moreover, this second study demonstrates that themanipulation of history did not affect group-based guilt which is different from Study 1. In that study, we observed lessguilt in the unfavourable history condition than in the mixed condition that was partly mediated by the perceived difficultyof making reparations. The independent manipulation of perceived difficulty in the present study may have caused the lackof effect of the history manipulation. This implies that the manipulation was not effective enough to elicit more group-based guilt in the unfavourable condition compared to the mixed condition. However, this could be attributed to a numberof factors in this particular research. That is, the victims are children reflecting an especially vulnerable group, thepresence of knowledge about the Stolen Generation and the debates at the time of this research about a national apology tothe Stolen Generation may have increased participants’ awareness of the immoral behaviour of the Australiangovernments despite receiving one positive story (as in the mixed history condition).

In addition, different from Doosje et al. (1998) but similar to Study 1, after centring the predictors a hierarchicalregression analysis revealed that national identification was not a significant moderator of the relationship between historyand group-based guilt (neither between reparability and guilt, nor between history, reparability and guilt). However, asshown before, our findings are consistent with other findings obtained in Australia (McGarty et al., 2005).

The fourth prediction involving reported familiarity was supported. We conducted an ANOVA on the informednessratings before and after reading the stories with history and reparability as between-subjects factors and the two occasionsof measurement as within-subjects factor. Mean scores for feeling informed are shown in Table 2. We found a significantmain effect of the within factor, F(1, 85)! 40.11, p< .001, partial h2! .32, showing that all participants felt moreinformed after reading. There were no other significant effects. The increased intensity of feeling informed suggests thatreading stories can serve as a basis for making reparations as long as these reparations are perceived as achievable.

Mediation Analyses

We conducted a mediation analysis to test the fifth prediction that group-based guilt would mediate the relationshipbetween reparability condition and support for reparation by Australians after reading the stories. The first regression

Table 2. Mean scores (and standard deviations) for dependent variables as a function of history and reparability (Study 2)

Variable

History condition

Unfavourable Mixed

Reparability condition Reparability condition

Impossible (n! 25) Possible (n! 23) Impossible (n! 20) Possible (n! 21)

Opinion time 1 6.06 (1.60) 5.92 (1.73) 5.93 (1.72) 5.95 (0.94)Opinion time 2 5.75 (1.45) 6.34 (1.82) 5.94 (1.53) 6.74 (1.10)Group-based guilt 4.46 (2.47) 5.15 (2.45) 3.48 (2.49) 5.05 (2.14)Personal willingness 5.04 (1.98) 5.76 (1.93) 4.53 (2.13) 5.40 (1.67)Informed time 1 3.76 (2.03) 3.61 (2.42) 3.80 (2.42) 3.76 (2.36)Informed time 2 4.76 (1.94) 5.17 (2.35) 4.95 (2.19) 4.76 (2.45)

Note: Scores could range from 1 to 9, with higher numbers indicating stronger responses.


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:43 PMline 20 and 21. The h must be the Greek letter eta: η

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:44 PMline 45. The h must be the Greek letter eta: η

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

analysis showed that reparability was a significant predictor of group-based guilt, ß! .22 and explained 4.9% of thevariance in group-based guilt, F(1, 87)! 4.51, p< .05. The second regression analysis demonstrated that reparability wasa significant predictor of support for reparation after reading stories, ß! .23 and explained 5.3% of the variance in supportfor reparation by Australians, F(1, 85)! 4.80, p< .05. The third regression analysis with both group-based guilt andreparability explained 26.2% of the variance in support for reparation by Australians after reading stories, F(2,84)! 14.92, p< .001. Group-based guilt (ß! .47, p< .001) was a significant predictor of support for reparation, whereasreparability was no longer a significant predictor of support (ß! .13, ns). Thus after controlling for group-based guilt, therelationship between reparability condition and support for reparation by Australians disappeared. A bootstrapping test(Hayes, 2008) revealed that the indirect effect of reparability on support for reparation, via group-based guilt wassignificant (z! 2.03, p< .05). For the sixth prediction we conducted a mediation analysis to test that group-based guilt(already established above to be predicted by reparability condition) would mediate the relationship between reparabilitycondition and personal willingness to support reparation. Reparability was a marginally significant predictor of personalwillingness, ß! .20 and explained 4% of the variance in personal willingness, F(1, 87)! 3.65, p< .06. A regressionanalysis with both reparability and group-based guilt explained 43.2% of the variance in personal willingness, F(2,86)! 32.72, p< .001. Group-based guilt (ß! .64, p< .001) was a significant predictor of personal willingness to supportreparation, whereas reparability was no longer a significant predictor of personal willingness (ß! .06, ns). Thus aftercontrolling for group-based guilt, the relationship between reparability condition and personal willingness to supportreparation disappeared. A bootstrapping test (Hayes, 2008) revealed that the indirect effect of reparability on personalwillingness, via group-based guilt was significant (z! 2.03, p< .05). We did not test the corresponding predictions 5b and6b for history because history condition did not affect group-based guilt, or support for reparation, or personal willingnessto support reparation.

In sum, the mediation analyses show that support for reparations (both personally and by Australians in general) variedas a function of perceived difficulty of reparations and that group-based guilt mediates that relationship. Thus even whenthe magnitude of the transgressions was extreme, participants indicated support for the Forgotten Australians as long asthey perceived those reparations as achievable.

General Discussion

The present research investigated the impact of magnitude of harm and perceived difficulty of making reparations onreported guilt and support for reparation towards victims. These victims are the Forgotten Australians who represent anexceptional case because the lack of knowledge about these victims allowed us to manipulate knowledge about this groupin an experimental design. Our studies were therefore able to combine aspects of naturalistic and controlled research. Wethink this approach is superior to the obvious alternatives such as using scenarios or artificial groups.

Both studies contribute to the limited evidence that the perceived difficulty of making reparations influences group-based guilt. The first study shows that group-based guilt was predicted by the extent of harm described in the stories told byForgotten Australians and by the perceived difficulty of making reparations. Consistent with Doosje et al.’s (1998)manipulation of history, we expected that when the magnitude of harm increases, so does group-based guilt. However, wefound the opposite effect. Thus emphasizing a negative history could have opposing effects because it can enhance group-based guilt (Doosje et al., 1998Q5) but also undermine group-based guilt as in the present study. As argued before, this is animportant point for researchers who want to use this methodology in research on guilt. A presentation of a negative poreambiguous history may involve subtle manipulations of many different factors, especially in situations where participantsare ill-informed about the topic at hand. The argument that the magnitude of harm in the stories could have influenced the(im)possibility of providing reparations, was supported in the second study. The first study enhances theoretical insights inperceived difficulty of making reparations and group-based guilt because it revealed that emphasizing a negative historycould undermine guilt because it implicitly communicates that it may be impossible rather than merely difficult to restorejustice. Whereas Schmitt et al. (2007) have identified reparation difficulty in terms of behavioural effort relative to theimportance of restoring justice as a deterrent to group-based guilt, the present study shows that the magnitude oftransgressions can also serve as a deterrent to group-based guilt because of the potential impossibility to repair theconsequences of the transgressions. The importance of this finding is that the magnitude of harm decreases group-basedguilt when people assume that it is impossible or beyond their control to provide reparations for the harm done.

Q5


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:45 PMchecked

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

The magnitude of harm did not affect group-based guilt in Study 2. As argued before, this could be a result ofcharacteristics of the present research involving an especially vulnerable group of victims (children) and the influence ofknowledge about the Stolen Generation which may have enhanced views about the immoral behaviour of the Australiangovernments. Thus the absence of a difference in group-based guilt between the story conditions does not imply that themagnitude of harm is irrelevant for the occurrence of guilt as long as the harm could be repaired. It is possible that with lessextreme mistreatment, the magnitude of harm does affect group-based guilt such that moderate intense harm elicits moreguilt than low intense harm.

The theoretically novel contribution of the second study which included a direct manipulation of perceived difficultythat was intended to weaken or strengthen the ability to make reparations is twofold. First, it was demonstrated that theperceived difficulty of making reparations influences both group-based guilt and support for reparation even when themagnitude of the harm was extreme. The prominent role of the perceived difficulty of making reparations is a valuablecontribution to the literature in the domain of guilt. Second, it was observed that participants’ opinions on support forreparation by Australians is a function of the perceived difficulty of making reparations and that group-based guiltmediates this relationship. Moreover, it was found that perceived difficulty of making reparations on personal willingnessto support reparation was also mediated by group-based guilt.

A practical novelty of the present research involves the impact of reading stories on people’s reactions. We observed inthe second study that reading stories about past treatment of Forgotten Australians increases familiarity with this relativelyunknown group. Thus, a confrontation with stories of lived experience in childhood can enhance support for reparation,particularly when making reparations are potentially achievable. Becoming more aware of these victims’ experiences inthe past and the consequences of this treatment in the present may have important implications for the future. First, it mayhelp to acknowledge the identity of the victim group which may serve as a new beginning in the relation with these victimsof injustice. Second, we found that reading just two stories and emphasizing that reparations are potentially possible caninitiate personal willingness to commit to positive social change that could potentially improve the circumstances ofvictims. Therefore, if one wishes to increase the chances of reparation one should encourage people to read the stories toldby victims of past injustice and one should make it clear that is possible to make reparations. This is important becausereparation is a gesture of compassion and understanding for all survivors of separation and their families.

There is anecdotal and other evidence that providing people with voice is empowering for them (Platow, Reid, &Andrew, 1998; Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998). The current research is important, however, because it providesdirect social psychological evidence of the processes by which victim stories can produce changes in others that might leadto benefits for those victims.

REFERENCES

Australian Parliament website. (2004). Retrieved April 2005 from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/report/Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiation historical injustices. New York: W.W. Norton.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic,and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1173–1182.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.Berndsen, M., Van der Pligt, J., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Guilt and regret: The determining role of interpersonal andintrapersonal harm. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 55–70.

Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2004). International perspectives on the experience of collective guilt. In N. R. Branscombe, & B.Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brehm, J. W. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 2–22.Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1993). The role of discrepancy-associated affect in prejudice reduction. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L.Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 317–344). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., &Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association:When one’s group has a negative history.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886.

HayesQ6, A. F. (2008). SPSSmacro for bootstrapping specific indirect effects in multiple mediation models. Retrieved 22 July 2008 fromhttp://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/SPSS programs/indirect.htm

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

Q6


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:45 PMchecked

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC). (1997). Bringing them home: Report of the national inquiry into theseparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families (Chair: Sir Ronald Wilson). Canberra: AustralianGovernment Printing Service.

Iyer, A., Leach, C.W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003).White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129.

JohnsonQ7, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107,375–384.

McGarty, C., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2004). Refining the meaning of the ‘Collective’ in collective guilt: Harm, guilt and apology in Australia. InN. R. Branscombe, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 112–129). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

McGarty, C., Pedersen, A., Leach, C.W., Mansell, T., Waller, J., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2005). Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitmentto apology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 659–680.

Platow,M. J., Reid, S., & Andrew, S. (1998). Leadership endorsement: The role of distributive and procedural behaviour in interpersonaland intergroup contexts. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 35–47.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221.

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Brehm, J. W. (2004). Gender inequality and the intensity of men’s collective guilt. In N. R.Branscombe, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 75–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.

SchmittQ8, M. T., Miller, D. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Brehm, J. W. (2007). The difficulty of making reparations affects the intensity ofcollective guilt. Manuscript under review.

Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Groupmembership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470–493.

Senate Community Affairs References Committee. (2001). Lost Innocents: Righting the Record. Report on child migration (2001),Retrieved 12 December 2004 from http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/completed_inquiries/1999-02/child_migrat/report/index.htm.

SenateQ9 Community Affairs References Committee. (2004). Forgotten Australians. A report on Australians who experiencedinstitutional or out-of-home care as children. Retrieved 20 January 2005.

Unicef website. (2005). Retrieved December 2007 from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/media_27185.html

APPENDIX

Negative Story

‘Next, we went to an awful children’s home called YYY. . .We were not allowed to go to the toilet and told not to wet thebed! I told my sister towee in my bed, if she had to, so theywould not belt her. In the morning, the nuns would walk straightup to me and the other kids and wewould all get belted with the strap for wetting our beds. I was made to work like a slave.At 4.30 am, my little sister and I were forced to carry twomops and buckets up steep stairs to the next floor and scrub toiletsand bathrooms. . . No shoes or underwear for me. The food was terrible. For breakfast everyday we ate stale bread withlumpy hot milk. For dinner we ate boiled ‘‘hogget’’ with Swedes’.

Positive Story

‘I was transferred to XXX Home 20/5/1939 aged 9 years and 5 months. I remember that when I went to XXX I startedwetting the bed for about 18 months until I settled down. I was never punished for this. At XXX they taught you to makeyour bed, wash your clothes, and we shared laundry duties, farm duties, cooking separating milk, harvesting. I found thehomes to be a good environment. . . The only fights I saw were between boys’.

Q7

Q8

Q9


DOI: 10.1002/ejsp


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:46 PMPlease, delete this reference

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:48 PMSchmitt, M.T., Miller, D.A., Branscombe, N.R., & Brehm, J.W. (2008). The Difficulty of Making Reparations Affects the Intensity of Collective Guilt. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 267-279.

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:55 PMRighting the Record - Report on child migration.

bern0029

bern0029 - 20/04/2009 12:56 PMNo Italics

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OFS

Author Query Form (EJSP/642)

Special Instruction: Author please include responses to queries with your other corrections andreturn by e-mail.

Q1: Author: Please verify the affiliations and corresponding address.

Q2: Author: Please check presentation of the centred text.

Q3: Author: Please check presentation of the table footnotes.

Q4: Author: Please check the change made.

Q5: Author: Please check the change made.

Q6: Author: Please check presentation of the reference.

Q7: Author: Reference is not cited in the text, please check.

Q8: Author: Please update.

Q9: Author: Please check presentation of the reference.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

!!

!

!

!"#$%&'()*+,&-"./+(0)&/#(1&!

!

!

!"#!$%&'(!')*#!+%!,-%$!%&.!/00.#1)/+)%2!+%!3%&4!/!-)5-'3!6/'&#(!1%2+.)7&+%.!+%!")'#38,!0&7')1/+)%2,4!73!%99#.)25!/!234526&789&:4;<=23>!%99!+-#!0&7'),-#(!0.)1#!%9!/23!%9!%&.!

7%%*,:;!!<''!3%&!2##(!+%!(%!),!/00'3!9%.!+-#!!4?6@&'2>A=B&-4;<=23>&/CB:!73!1%=0'#+)25!+-#!

/++/1-#(!9%.=!/2(!.#+&.2)25!)+!+%!&,!/+!+-#!9%''%$)25!/((.#,,>!!?-#!@/+/7/,#!A.%&0!B<&+-%.!C'&7D!

E%-2!")'#3!F!G%2,!H+(!?-#!<+.)&=!G%&+-#.2!A/+#!C-)1-#,+#.!

IJKL!MGN!OP!

<'+#.2/+)6#'34!3%&!1/2!B6D4;>6B&=3?436!/+!$$$;$)'#3#&.%0#;1%=Q5%Q/&+-%.(),1%&2+!

I'#/,#!0/,,!%2!(#+/)',!%9!+-),!%99#.!+%!/23!1%R/&+-%.,!%.!9#''%$!1%2+.)7&+%.,;!!<9+#.!.#5),+#.)25!3%&!$)''!.#1#)6#!3%&.!")'#3!<&+-%.!@),1%&2+!C/.(!$)+-!/!,0#1)/'!0.%=%+)%2!

1%(#4!$-)1-!3%&!$)''!2##(!+%!S&%+#!$-#2#6#.!3%&!%.(#.!7%%*,!().#1+!9.%=!&,;!!?-#!S&)1*#,+!$/3!+%!%.(#.!3%&.!7%%*,!9.%=!&,!),!6)/!%&.!T&.%0#/2!$#7,)+#!/+>!!

A>>EFGGHHHIH4?6@62B=E6I<=J&!

P#3!7#2#9)+,!+%!&,)25!+-#!,)+#!/2(!%.(#.)25!%2')2#!)21'&(#>!!!" U#/'R+)=#!GTCOUT!%2R')2#!%.(#.)25!!!" T/,3!1/+/'%5&#!7.%$,)25!

!" @#()1/+#(!<&+-%.!.#,%&.1#!1#2+.#!!" J00%.+&2)+3!+%!,)52!&0!9%.!,&7V#1+R%.)#2+/+#(!#R=/)'!/'#.+,!!<'+#.2/+)6#'34!3%&!1/2!%.(#.!().#1+!+-.%&5-!C&,+%=#.!G#.6)1#,!/+>!!

1,R7%%*,W$)'#3;1%;&*4!%.!1/''!XYY!BZDK[Y\!MY\[LY4!9/]!XYY!BZDK[Y\!MY\\Z\!!G%!+/*#!/(6/2+/5#!%9!+-),!5.#/+!%99#.!/2(!.#+&.2!3%&.!1%=0'#+#(!9%.=!+%(/3;!

!!^%&.,!,)21#.#'34!

!

!_#.)+3!H#/6#.!!A.%&0!`/.*#+)25!`/2/5#.!/&+-%.W$)'#3;1%;&*!!

!!!

:?TU`G!<a@!CJa@b?bJaG!?-),!%99#.! ),! #]1'&,)6#! +%!")'#3!<&+-%.,4!T()+%.,4!C%2+.)7&+%.,!/2(!T()+%.)/'!c%/.(!`#=7#.,! )2!/1S&).)25!7%%*,! 9%.! +-#).!0#.,%2/'!&,#;!?-#.#!=&,+! 7#! 2%! .#,/'#! +-.%&5-! /23! 1-/22#';! ?-#! %99#.! ),! ,&7V#1+! +%! ,+%1*! /6/)'/7)')+3! /2(! 1/22%+! 7#! /00')#(! .#+.%,0#1+)6#'3;!?-),!

#2+)+'#=#2+!1/22%+!7#!&,#(!)2!1%2V&21+)%2!$)+-!/23!%+-#.!,0#1)/'!%99#.;!")'#3!.#,#.6#,!+-#!.)5-+!+%!/=#2(!+-#!+#.=,!%9!+-#!%99#.!/+!/23!+)=#;!

!!

!

!!!!

!!?%!#2V%3!3%&.![de!(),1%&2+4!+#''!&,!3%&.!/.#/,!%9!)2+#.#,+!/2(!3%&!$)''!.#1#)6#!.#'#6/2+!1/+/'%5&#,!%.!'#/9'#+,!!

9.%=!$-)1-!+%!,#'#1+!3%&.!7%%*,;!I'#/,#!)2()1/+#!3%&.!,0#1)9)1!,&7V#1+!/.#/,!7#'%$;!

'<<=23>43D&!" I&7')1!

!" C%.0%./+#!

f!g!f!g!

f!g!

'B<A4>6<>2B6&&

12;436;;GKC3CD6J63>&!

f!g!!

f!g!

/A6J4;>B@&

!" <2/'3+)1/'!!" b2(&,+.)/'QG/9#+3!!" J.5/2)1!

!" b2%.5/2)1!!" I%'3=#.!!" G0#1+.%,1%03!

f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!!

/=JE2>6B&.<463<6&

!" @/+/7/,#Q@/+/!"/.#-%&,#!!" b2+#.2#+!c&,)2#,,!!" a#+$%.*)25!

!" I.%5./==)25QG%9+$/.#!@#6#'%0=#2+!

!" J7V#1+!?#1-2%'%53!

f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!!f!g!

$3<@<?=E6:4CG,6L6B63<6&!" c&,)2#,,Qh)2/21#!!" H)9#!G1)#21#,!

!" `#()1/'!G1)#21#,!!" I-3,)1/'!G1)#21#,!!" ?#1-2%'%53!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

!

$3D4366B43D&!" C)6)'!!" C%==&2)1/+)%2,!?#1-2%'%53!

!" T'#1+.%2)1!!" T26).%2=#2+/'!!" b2(&,+.)/'!

!" `#1-/2)1/'!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!!f!g!f!g!

f!g!!

$CB>A&M&$3N4B=3J63>C?&.<463<6&&

*=;E4>C?4>@&

f!g!!

f!g!

O43C3<6G"3N6;>43D&!" T1%2%=)1,!

!" b2,+)+&+)%2/'!!" I#.,%2/'!h)2/21#!

f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!!

P636>4<;&!" c)%)29%.=/+)1,Q!!!!!!!!!!!C%=0&+/+)%2/'!c)%'%53!

!" I.%+#%=)1,!!" A#2%=)1,!!" A#2#!`/00)25!!" C')2)1/'!A#2#+)1,!

f!g!f!g!!

f!g!f!g!f!g!f!g!

!

#4L6&.<463<6&&#C3:;<CE6&'B<A4>6<>2B6&

&KC>A6JC>4<;&.>C>4;>4<;&!

KC32LC<>2B43D&&KC>6B4C?;&.<463<6&

!

f!g!!f!g!

!f!g!!f!g!

!f!g!!

f!g!K6:4<C?&.<463<6&!" C/.()%6/,1&'/.!

!" @)/7#+#,!!" T2(%1.)2%'%53!!" b=/5)25!!" J7,+#+.)1,QA32/#1%'%53!

!" J21%'%53!!" I-/.=/1%'%53!!" I,31-)/+.3!

f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!

!

Q;@<A=?=D@&!" C')2)1/'!

!" h%.#2,)1!!" G%1)/'!F!I#.,%2/')+3!!" i#/'+-!F!G0%.+!!" C%52)+)6#!

!" J.5/2)j/+)%2/'!!" @#6#'%0=#2+/'!F!G0#1)/'!T(!!" C-)'(!"#'9/.#!

!" G#'9Ri#'0!!

f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!f!g!f!g!

f!g!f!g!!f!g!

f!g!

0=3RQB=L4>& f!g! QA@;4<;GQA@;4<C?&.<463<6& f!g!

!!!

I'#/,#!1%=0'#+#!+-#!2#]+!0/5#!Q!

,$P".),')"+0&O+,K&

O=B&!4?6@&'2>A=B&/?2S&-4;<=23>&/CB:&

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!b!1%29).=!+-/+!b!/=!B:(#'#+#!$-#.#!2%+!/00')1/7'#D>!

!!!!!!!!!!!/!!4?6@!c%%*!<&+-%.QT()+%.QC%2+.)7&+%.:!%9!+-#!9%''%$)25!7%%*B,D>!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!bGca>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!bGca>!

!!!!!!!!!!!/!!4?6@!E%&.2/'!T()+%.QC%2+.)7&+%.QT()+%.)/'!c%/.(!`#=7#.:!%9!+-#!9%''%$)25!V%&.2/'B,D>!

!!

!

GbAa<?OUT>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!@/+#>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

!

&

Q#$'.$&/+KQ#$)$&)*$&O+##+!"0P&-$)'"#.&"0&1#+/T&/'Q")'#.F&

&?b?HT>!B#;5;!`.4!`.,[email protected]!kkkkkkkk!!hOHH!a<`T>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk;k!!

EJc!?b?HT!B%.!J11&0/+)%2D>!!!!!;;kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!

@TI<U?`Ta?>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk;;!

CJ`I<a^QbaG?b?O?bJa>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!

<@@UTGG>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!

?J"aQCb?^>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

CJOa?^QG?<?T>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk;!!

CJOa?U^>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk;!

IJG?CJ@TQlbI!CJ@T>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

@<^?b`T!?TH>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

h<m>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

TR`<bH>!kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

&

%+(,&Q$,.+0'#&-')'&!

"#4!E%-2!")'#3!F!G%2,!H+(4!$)''!&,#!+-#!)29%.=/+)%2!3%&!-/6#!0.%6)(#(!+%!9&'9)'!3%&.!.#S&#,+;!b2!/(()+)%24!$#!$%&'(!')*#!+%>!

!

K;! O,#!3%&.!)29%.=/+)%2!+%!*##0!3%&!)29%.=#(!73!0%,+!%9!+)+'#,!/2(!%99#.,!%9!)2+#.#,+!+%!3%&!/2(!/6/)'/7'#!9.%=!&,!%.!%+-#.!

")'#3!A.%&0!1%=0/2)#,!$%.'($)(#4!/2(!=/3!,&00'3!3%&.!(#+/)',!+%!=#=7#.,!%9!+-#!")'#3!A.%&0!9%.!+-),!0&.0%,#;!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!f!g!!I'#/,#!+)1*!+-#!7%]!)9!3%&!(%!0+)!$),-!+%!.#1#)6#!+-),!)29%.=/+)%2!!

!

[;! G-/.#!3%&.!)29%.=/+)%2!$)+-!%+-#.!1/.#9&''3!,#'#1+#(!1%=0/2)#,!,%!+-/+!+-#3!=/3!1%2+/1+!3%&!73!0%,+!$)+-!(#+/)',!%9!

+)+'#,!/2(!%99#.,!+-/+!=/3!7#!%9!)2+#.#,+!+%!3%&;!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!f!g!!I'#/,#!+)1*!+-#!7%]!)9!3%&!(%!0+)!$),-!+%!.#1#)6#!+-),!)29%.=/+)%2;!&

$RK'"#&'#$,)"0P&.$,U"/$&

"#!/',%!%99#.!/2!/'#.+)25!,#.6)1#!+%!%&.!/&+-%.!7/,#!6)/!#R=/)'4!$)+-!.#5&'/.!,0#1)/'!%99#.,!/2(!1%=0#+)+)%2,;!!b9!3%&!-+!$),-!+%!

.#1#)6#!+-#,#4!0'#/,#!%0+!)2!73!+)1*)25!+-#!7%]!f!g;!

b94!/+!/23!+)=#4!3%&!$),-!+%!,+%0!.#1#)6)25!)29%.=/+)%24!0'#/,#!1%2+/1+!+-#!@/+/7/,#!A.%&0!B(/+/7/,#5.%&0W$)'#3;1%;&*D!/+!E%-2!")'#3!F!G%2,!H+(4!?-#!<+.)&=4!G%&+-#.2!A/+#4!C-)1-#,+#.4!IJKL!MGN4!OP;!

!

!)$,K.&M&/+0-")"+0.&?-),!%99#.!),!#]1'&,)6#!+%!")'#3!<&+-%.,4!T()+%.,4!C%2+.)7&+%.,!/2(!T()+%.)/'!c%/.(!`#=7#.,!)2!/1S&).)25!7%%*,!9%.!+-#).!0#.,%2/'!&,#;!?-#.#!,-%&'(!7#!2%!.#,/'#!+-.%&5-!/23!1-/22#';!?-#!%99#.!),!,&7V#1+!+%!,+%1*!/6/)'/7)')+3!/2(!=/3!2%+!7#!/00')#(!.#+.%,0#1+)6#'3;!?-),!#2+)+'#=#2+!1/22%+!7#!&,#(!)2!1%2V&21+)%2!$)+-!/23!%+-#.!,0#1)/'!%99#.;!")'#3!.#,#.6#,!+-#!.)5-+!+%!6/.3!+-#!+#.=,!%9!+-#!%99#.!/+!/23!+)=#;!!

Q#$'.$&,$)(,0&)*".&O+,K&)+F!

@/+/7/,#!A.%&0!B<&+-%.!C'&7D4!E%-2!")'#3!F!G%2,!H+(4!?-#!<+.)&=4!G%&+-#.2!A/+#4!C-)1-#,+#.4!IJKL!MGN4!OP!/&+-%.W$)'#3;1%;&*!

h/]>!XYY!BZDK[Y\!nnZKdY!

!

Perspective Taking and Opinions About Forms of Reparation for Victims of Historical Harm

Documents

Transcript of Perspective Taking and Opinions About Forms of Reparation for Victims of Historical Harm