Instrumental and Socioemotional Paths to Intergroup Reconciliation and the Needs-Based Model of Socioemotional Reconciliation

By Arie Nadler, Nurit Shnabel. 2008

169 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/622e00df361458913b2a0c13f3ae7266f32d9b6f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Arie Nadler
2. Nurit Shnabel
3. Patrick Kanyangara
4. D. Páez
5. J. Vollhardt
6. V. Yzerbyt
7. B. Rimé

Citations in the corpus

• Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model (2015, background): “THE INSTRUMENTAL AND SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ROUTES TO RECONCILIATION Our theorising (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008) distinguishes between instrumental and socio-emotional routes to intergroup reconciliation: The first consists of acts of pragmatic cooperation to achieve common instrumental goals (e.g., cleaner…”
• The Social Psychology of Collective Victimhood (2017, background): “The basic premise of the Needs-based Model for Reconciliation (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008, for a review see Nadler & Shnabel, 2015) is that individuals and groups assess themselves and each other along two distinct identity dimensions, namely: the agency dimension subsuming traits such as influence and ”
• The Role of Agency and Morality in Reconciliation Processes (2015, methodology): “The needs-based model of reconciliation (Nadler & Shnabel, 2008; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) was developed to explain the dynamics between victims and perpetrators within the apology-forgiveness cycle in both the private and the public spheres.”
• The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict (2012, background): “One impediment to the resolution of these conflicts is the 7   uncompromising psychological biases that affect members of both sides of a conflict 8   (Bar-Tal, 2007; Ehrlinger et al., 2005; Krueger and Funder, 2004; Lilienfeld et al., 2009; 9   Nadler and Shnabel, 2008).”
• The impact of Gacaca tribunals in Rwanda: Psychosocial effects of participation in a truth and reconciliation process after a genocide (2011, background): “Hypothesis 2 : A consideration for the different needs of victims and perpetrators ( Nadler & Shnabel , 2008 ) together with Lazare ' s ( 2004 ) view that an exchange of power and shame is essential in restorative justice rituals led us to qualify somewhat the first hypothesis regarding changes in…”