Between applause and arm crossing: Public reception of within-group apologies and the role of system justification

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Yeongjin Yu, Taeyun Jung
{"title":"Between applause and arm crossing: Public reception of within-group apologies and the role of system justification","authors":"Yeongjin Yu,&nbsp;Taeyun Jung","doi":"10.1111/asap.12443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Within-group apologies restore important values and afford victims their dignity; however, the system justification motive may cause group authorities to hesitate in apologizing or to include system-justifying expressions to soothe the general public. Two studies were conducted, both on-campus (Study 1) and off-campus (Study 2), to empirically illustrate the public reception of within-group apologies (victim-focused and system-challenging) and silence. The results indicate that higher levels of system justification are associated with more favorable attitudes toward responses from authority. For the general public (Study 2), high-level justifiers supported the government's silence as much as the victim-focused apology, maintaining trust despite perceiving unfairness. Conversely, low-level justifiers, though negative overall, supported victim-focused apology more than system-challenging apology or silence. Additionally, the general public in Study 2 favored the victim-focused apology over the system-challenging one, rendering system-justifying expressions unnecessary. We propose that authorities prioritize apologies emphasizing dignity and respect for victims, instead of fearing potential negative reception influenced by the system justification motive.</p>","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12443","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Within-group apologies restore important values and afford victims their dignity; however, the system justification motive may cause group authorities to hesitate in apologizing or to include system-justifying expressions to soothe the general public. Two studies were conducted, both on-campus (Study 1) and off-campus (Study 2), to empirically illustrate the public reception of within-group apologies (victim-focused and system-challenging) and silence. The results indicate that higher levels of system justification are associated with more favorable attitudes toward responses from authority. For the general public (Study 2), high-level justifiers supported the government's silence as much as the victim-focused apology, maintaining trust despite perceiving unfairness. Conversely, low-level justifiers, though negative overall, supported victim-focused apology more than system-challenging apology or silence. Additionally, the general public in Study 2 favored the victim-focused apology over the system-challenging one, rendering system-justifying expressions unnecessary. We propose that authorities prioritize apologies emphasizing dignity and respect for victims, instead of fearing potential negative reception influenced by the system justification motive.

在掌声和交叉手臂之间:公众接受团体内部道歉和制度辩护的作用
团体内部的道歉可以恢复重要的价值观,让受害者重获尊严;然而,制度正当性动机可能会导致团体当局在道歉或包含制度正当性表达以安抚公众方面犹豫不决。我们进行了两项研究,分别是在校园内(研究1)和校外(研究2),以实证的方式说明公众对群体内道歉(以受害者为中心和挑战系统)和沉默的接受程度。结果表明,较高的制度辩护水平与对权威回应的更有利态度有关。对于普通公众(研究2),高级别辩护者支持政府保持沉默,也支持以受害者为中心的道歉,尽管感到不公平,但仍保持信任。相反,低级辩护者虽然总体上是消极的,但他们更支持以受害者为中心的道歉,而不是挑战制度的道歉或沉默。此外,在研究2中,公众更倾向于以受害者为中心的道歉,而不是挑战系统的道歉,这使得为系统辩护的表达变得不必要。我们建议当局优先考虑强调尊严和尊重受害者的道歉,而不是担心可能受到制度辩护动机的负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信