A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness

By Michael J. A. Wohl, Matthew J. Hornsey, C. Philpot. 2011

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/418ea0917bad95fc3204da9384da36863058f092

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Eran Halperin
2. Sabina Čehajić‐Clancy
3. Michael J. A. Wohl
4. James J. Gross
5. Amit Goldenberg
6. Matthew J. Hornsey
7. Mei-Lin Chang
8. Gal Sheppes

In Social Psychology

1. James J. Gross
2. Amit Goldenberg
3. Sabina Čehajić‐Clancy
4. Eran Halperin
5. Michael J. A. Wohl
6. Matthew J. Hornsey
7. Mei-Lin Chang
8. Jutta Joormann

Citations in the corpus

• Social-Psychological Interventions for Intergroup Reconciliation: An Emotion Regulation Perspective (2016, background): “(Blatz, Schumann & Ross, 2009; Kirchhoff & Cehaji c-Clancy, 2014; Wohl et al., 2011); the apology, however sincerely made, may not adequately address the victim group’s needs for (re)empowerment (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008); apologies may simply be perceived as insufficient to right the wrongs…”
• We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link with intergroup forgiveness (2013, background): “…the research discussed be interpreted as implying that the sole reason to apologise would be to promote forgiveness, or that it is a victim’s responsibility to forgive in the face of an apology (indeed this notion is critiqued elsewhere; see Harth, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2011; Wohl et al., 2011).”