601625

research-article2015
CDPXXX10.1177/0963721415601625Shnabel, NadlerAgency and Morality in Reconciliation

Current Directions in Psychological

The Role of Agency and Morality in Science

2015, Vol. 24(6) 477­–483
© The Author(s) 2015
Reconciliation Processes: The Perspective Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

of the Needs-Based Model DOI: 10.1177/0963721415601625

cdps.sagepub.com

Nurit Shnabel and Arie Nadler

School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University

Abstract
According to the needs-based model of reconciliation, transgressions threaten victims’ sense of agency and perpetrators’
moral image. Consequently, victims and perpetrators experience heightened needs for empowerment and acceptance,
respectively. Exchange interactions (e.g., expressions of apologies and forgiveness) through which victims and
perpetrators satisfy each other’s needs facilitate reconciliation. We present research that has supported the model
in both interpersonal and intergroup contexts. We then extend the model to “dual” conflicts, in which both parties
transgress against each other and compete over the victim status, and to intergroup contexts of structural inequality.
Finally, we discuss need satisfaction outside the victim-perpetrator dyad as an intriguing avenue for future research.

Keywords
reconciliation, the needs-based model, competitive victimhood, forgiveness, apology, agency, moral image, identity
restoration, interpersonal conflict, intergroup conflict

Whether it is divorcing couples fighting over their com-
mon property or nations clashing over territory, conflict-
ing parties almost never fight solely about tangible
resources. Rather, their conflict often revolves around
symbolic resources such as honor, recognition, and jus-
tice or identity-related issues like who are the “good
guys” and the “bad guys.” Therefore, restoring harmoni-
ous relations requires not only reaching agreed-upon for-
mulas (e.g., financial agreements or peace treaties) for
distributing the concrete resources under dispute but
also overcoming emotional barriers that block the path to
reconciliation. A major social mechanism for overcoming
such barriers is the apology-forgiveness cycle, which has
the power to dramatically transform the relations between
conflicting parties (Tavuchis, 1991).
While the power of apology and forgiveness in inter-
personal relationships may be well known, there has also
been a growing use of this mechanism in the public
sphere. One renowned example is the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South
Africa, in which victims took an active role in the prose-
cution process and perpetrators were granted amnesty if
they disclosed the truth about their apartheid-related
crimes. According to Gobodo-Madikizela (2008), who
served on the commission, it “brought the language of
apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation after mass atroc-
ity into public focus” (p. 59). 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 Needs-Based Model: Basic Logic
and Empirical Support
Social-psychological theorizing suggests that there are
two fundamental dimensions, the “Big Two,” along which
people judge themselves and others at both individual
and group levels: the agency dimension, representing
traits such as strength, competence, and influence, and
the moral-social dimension, representing traits such as
morality, warmth, and trustworthiness (Abele & Wojciszke,
2013). Building on this theorizing, the needs-based model
suggests that transgressions threaten victims’ and per­
petrators’ identities asymmetrically: Victims, who feel
Corresponding Author:
Nurit Shnabel, School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
E-mail: shnabeln@post.tau.ac.il
478
inferior regarding their ability to influence their out-
comes, experience threat to their agency dimension of
identity. Perpetrators, by contrast, suffer from threat to
their moral-social identity dimension. While this threat is
sometimes accompanied by feelings of guilt, many times
perpetrators view their behavior as legitimate (Baumeister,
1997). Nevertheless, knowing that psychologically signifi-
cant others view their behavior as immoral threatens per-
petrators’ moral image and leads to anxiety over social
exclusion, the sanction imposed upon those who violate
their community’s moral standards.
Because people are motivated to maintain their posi-
tive identities, these threats produce different motiva-
tional states. Victims, weak and humiliated, experience
the need to restore their agency, whereas perpetrators
experience the need to restore their moral image and
gain (re)acceptance to the community from which they
feel potentially excluded. If these needs remain unsatis-
fied, they impede reconciliation. For example, sometimes
victims behave vengefully in order to regain power
(Frijda, 1994) and perpetrators engage in moral disen-
gagement (e.g., minimizing the harm’s severity; Bandura,
1999) to downplay their culpability. However, exchange
interactions through which victims and perpetrators sat-
isfy each other’s needs for empowerment and acceptance
may open them to reconciliation.
The apology-forgiveness cycle is a primary social
mechanism through which such an exchange can be
accomplished. Specifically, perpetrators’ apology consti-
tutes an admission of owing victims a moral debt, which
returns control to the victims, and victims’ expressions of
forgiveness and empathy toward the perpetrators’ per-
spective mitigate the perpetrators’ moral inferiority and
reassure them of their belongingness. Beyond using the
apology-forgiveness cycle, which is the most straightfor-
ward example of exchange leading to need satisfaction,
victims and perpetrators can satisfy each other’s needs in
additional manners. For example, perpetrators may
empower their victims by expressing respect for their
achievements and abilities, or, in the case of victimized
groups, appealing to their national pride and heritage.
Similarly, victims can express acceptance of their perpe-
trators through readiness to form friendships or engage
in economic and cultural cooperation.
A successful exchange of empowerment and accep-
tance can promote reconciliation through two routes
(Shnabel, Nadler, & Dovidio, 2014). First, it can restore
the conflicting parties’ positive identities through sym-
bolically erasing the roles of “powerless victim” and
“immoral perpetrator.” Additionally, messages of accep-
tance conveyed by the victims imply that they will not
retaliate against or avoid the perpetrator (two common
responses among victims; McCullough, 2008), and mes-
sages of empowerment conveyed by perpetrators imply
Shnabel, Nadler
that they will not repeat the transgression (because they
now recognize the victim’s value). Thus, the exchange of
these messages can restore victims’ and perpetrators’
mutual trust. The restoration of both trust and positive
identities facilitates reconciliation. Figure 1 summarizes
the proposed process.
A series of experiments (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) sup-
ported the model’s hypotheses in contexts of interper-
sonal transgressions. One study used the creativity-test
paradigm, in which participants were assigned to be
either “writers” who composed marketing slogans for
products or “judges” who evaluated these slogans. In the
experimental condition, judges were instructed to be
very strict because being “too nice” could harm their own
chances of passing the test. Later on, participants were
informed that the judges had passed the test whereas
writers had failed it because of their judges’ harsh evalu-
ations. In the control condition, judges were instructed to
be lenient, and participants were later informed that the
judges had passed the test whereas writers had failed it
because of an external committee’s decision (this made it
possible to control for success and failure in the absence
of a deliberate transgression). As predicted, writers in the
experimental condition (i.e., victims) had the lowest
sense of agency and the highest need for power, whereas
judges in the experimental condition (i.e., perpetrators)
had the worst moral image and the highest need for
acceptance. In a subsequent study, we again used the
creativity-test paradigm to assign participants to be either
victims or perpetrators. After being informed of the
results of the test, participants received messages from
their partner that expressed, depending on experimental
condition, empowerment (i.e., acknowledgment of their
high competence), acceptance (i.e., acknowledgment of
their high social skills), or neither. As expected, victims’
readiness to reconcile was highest in the empowerment
condition, whereas perpetrators’ readiness to reconcile
was highest in the acceptance condition.
Another set of studies (Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich,
Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009) tested the model in intergroup
contexts. One study exposed Jewish and German partici-
pants to speeches allegedly made by their out-group’s
representatives at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of
Europe in Berlin. The speeches’ main message conveyed
either acceptance (e.g., “we should accept the [Jews/
Germans] and remember that we are all human beings”)
or empowerment (e.g., “the [Germans/Jews] have the
right to be strong and proud”). As expected, Jews showed
greater readiness to reconcile with Germans following
empowering messages, whereas Germans showed
greater readiness to reconcile with Jews following accept-
ing messages. Thus, the dynamic between members of
victimized and perpetrating groups corresponded to that
between individual victims and perpetrators.
Agency and Morality in Reconciliation 479

Social Role

Victim Perpetrator

Impaired identity Agency Moral-Social

dimension: (e.g., control, power, status) (e.g., communion, moral image)

Enhanced motivation Restoration of Agency Restoration of Moral-Social

for: Dimension of Identity Dimension of Identity

Empowerment by Perpetrator Acceptance by Victim

May be achieved
(e.g., apology, acknowledgment (e.g., forgiveness, understanding
through:
of victim’s value and competence) of perpetrator’s perspective)

Restoration of Agency Restoration of Moral Image

and Trust in the Perpetrator and Trust in the Victim
Restore balance by:
(i.e., victim feels (i.e., rejection threat and
strong and respected) moral inferiority are removed)

Increased Willingness to Reconcile

Results: (positive orientation toward the other conflict party,
willingness to invest resources to restore the relations)

Fig. 1. The needs-based model of reconciliation.

Extending the Model to partner’s allocations were unfair. In terms of psychologi-

“Dual” Contexts
While the model’s original formulation referred to “vic-
tims” and “perpetrators” as mutually exclusive roles, in
many conflicts both parties serve as victims and perpetra-
tors simultaneously. In one experiment that explored this
duality (SimanTov-Nachlieli & Shnabel, 2014), partici-
pants worked in dyads and had to allocate valuable
resources (i.e., credit points). Participants then received
feedback on the allocation task, which constituted the
experimental manipulation: In the control condition, par-
ticipants learned that both their own and their partner’s
allocations were fair; in the victim condition, that their
partner’s allocation was unfair (i.e., she or he allocated
the credit points in a selfish rather than a generous man-
ner, which did not align with the accepted norms); in the
perpetrator condition, that their allocation was unfair;
and in the dual condition, that both their and their
cal needs, “duals” showed heightened needs for both
agency (similar to victims) and positive moral image
(similar to perpetrators). In terms of behavior, however,
like victims, duals translated their heightened need for
agency into vengefulness (e.g., denial of credit points
from their partner), but unlike perpetrators, they failed to
translate their heightened need for positive moral image
into prosociality (e.g., donating to the partner). Similar
findings, pointing to the precedence of agency-related
over morality-related needs in determining duals’ behav-
ior, were obtained in the intergroup contexts involving
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (SimanTov-Nachlieli &
Shnabel, 2014) and the Liberian civil wars (Mazziotta,
Feuchte, Gausel, & Nadler, 2014).
These findings are consistent with Baumeister’s (1997)
observation that victimhood is more psychologically pro-
found than perpetration. Indeed, “dual” conflicting par-
ties often develop a deep sense of victimization, but not
480
of perpetration, and compete over the victim status
(Noor, Shnabel, Halabi, & Nadler, 2012). We theorized
that adversaries engage in such “competitive victimhood”
because receiving acknowledgment of one’s victim status
simultaneously satisfies the two needs heightened among
duals: the need for positive moral image (because the
victim status is associated with innocence) and the need
for agency (because receiving acknowledgment of one’s
victim status implies entitlement to various forms
of empowerment—e.g., reparations and third-party
support).
In studies that tested this theorizing (Shnabel, Halabi,
& Noor, 2013), participants were Israeli Palestinians and
Jews assigned either to the common-victim-identity con-
dition, which highlighted that both groups experienced
great suffering as a result of the conflict, or to the
common-perpetrator-identity condition, which high-
lighted that both groups actively inflicted harm upon each
other. As illustrated in Figure 2, participants in both condi-
tions reduced competitive victimhood and increased for-
giveness (compared to those in a control condition),1 yet
this effect was mediated through different paths: reduced
moral defensiveness (i.e., need to protect the in-group’s
morality at any cost) in the common-victim-identity con-
dition versus increased sense of agency in the common-
perpetrator-identity condition. These findings support our
theorizing about the dual motivations leading to competi-
tive victimhood and carry practical implications for devel-
oping strategies for overcoming competitive victimhood—a
major barrier to reconciliation.
Extending the Model to Contexts of
Structural Inequality
Intergroup conflict manifests not only in direct violence
(e.g., war) but also in structural violence (Galtung, 1969)—
namely, unequal social arrangements that privilege some
groups while depriving others. This inequality translates
into differential group stereotypes: Disadvantaged groups
Common-Victim- Reduced Moral
Identity Intervention Defensiveness
Common-Perpetrator- Increased Sense
Identity Intervention of Agency
Fig. 2. The paths through which common-victim-identity and common-perpetrator-identity interventions
increased forgiveness among Israeli Palestinians and Jews. Adapted from “Overcoming Competitive Victim-
hood and Facilitating Forgiveness Through Re-categorization Into a Common Victim or Perpetrator Identity,”
by N. Shnabel, S. Halabi, and M. Noor, 2013, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, p. 872. Copyright
2013 by Elsevier. Adapted with permission.
Shnabel, Nadler
are often stereotypically perceived as warm but incompe-
tent and advantaged groups as competent but cold and
immoral (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). The needs-based
model’s logic suggests that when group inequality is per-
ceived as illegitimate (e.g., reflecting unfair discrimina-
tion), the needs of advantaged- and disadvantaged-group
members should correspond to those of perpetrators and
victims.
Studies by Siem, von Oettingen, Mummendey, and
Nadler (2013) supported this logic. In one experiment,
participants were students of clinical psychology who
were randomly assigned to either the high-status or the
low-status condition, in which they compared themselves
to social workers or psychiatrists, respectively. In the
manipulation of (il)legitimacy, participants then learned
that intergroup status differences were either legitimate
because of different specialization requirements or ille-
gitimate because clinical psychologists and, depending
on condition, social workers or psychiatrists (i.e., out-
group members) perform similar work. As predicted, in
the legitimate-status-differences condition, there were no
differences between high- and low-status members in
terms of needs for acceptance (wish to be perceived as
likable and moral) or agency (wish to be influential).
However, in the illegitimate-status-differences condition,
high-status-group members’ need for acceptance was
higher than that of low-status-group members, whereas
the opposite pattern emerged for the need for agency.
Consistent findings were obtained in the context of inter-
racial interactions in the United States, such that African
Americans were primarily motivated to gain respect
whereas Caucasian Americans were primarily motivated
to be liked (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010).
Subsequent studies (Shnabel, Ullrich, Nadler, Dovidio,
& Aydin, 2013) found that messages from the out-group
that reaffirmed the advantaged group’s warmth and the
disadvantaged group’s competence not only improved
the groups’ attitudes toward each other but also increased
their readiness to collectively act for equality (through
Reduced
Competitive Increased
Victimhood Forgiveness
Agency and Morality in Reconciliation
demonstrations, petitions, etc.). The latter finding high-
lights the critical role of identity-restoration processes in
promoting structural equality. Regarding disadvantaged
groups, research on collective action has shown that
although they tend to perceive inequality as unfair, they
often fail to actively challenge the status quo because
they feel they lack collective efficacy (Mummendey,
Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999). Optimistically, however,
restoring disadvantaged-group members’ sense of agency
through competence-reaffirming messages from the
advantaged group prevented this passive acceptance of
inequality and increased disadvantaged-group members’
readiness to act for change. Practical interventions to pro-
mote positive intergroup relations, which often focus on
the communion dimension (e.g., fostering cross-group
friendship), should therefore also address power-related
issues and directly challenge the stereotypical percep-
tion, which perpetuates inequality, of disadvantaged
groups as incompetent.
As for advantaged-group members, our findings sup-
port Iyer and Leach’s (2010) criticism that the traditional
view within social-psychological theorizing fails to recog-
nize the importance of morality in intergroup relations.
This failure leads to a limited conceptualization of social
change as driven mainly by the action of disadvantaged
groups, because advantaged groups are assumed to be
primarily motivated to maintain their privilege. Opposite
to this traditional view, and consistent with Iyer and
Leach’s argument regarding the critical role of morality,
we found that once their threatened moral image was
reassured, advantaged-group members were ready to
relinquish their in-group’s privilege and exhibit solidarity-
based collective action.
Future Directions and Conclusion
While the needs-based model has identified the type of
messages that adversaries can exchange in order to pro-
mote reconciliation, in practice, adversaries often avoid
conveying conciliatory messages to each other because
they fear these positive gestures might not be reciprocated.
Therefore, a critical direction for future research is to
examine the potential for identity restoration occurring
outside the victim-perpetrator dyad to facilitate reconcilia-
tion. One source of such external identity restoration is
third parties. Admittedly, in contexts of interpersonal trans-
gressions, empowering and accepting messages from third
parties have been found to be relatively ineffective
(Shnabel et al., 2014). However, within intergroup con-
texts, in which conciliatory messages are typically expected
to be conveyed via group representatives rather than
directly by the victims and perpetrators (Simon &
Klandermans, 2001), empowering and accepting messages
by third parties who share a common identity with the
481
conflicting out-group have been shown to effectively pro-
mote reconciliation. For instance, messages from Jordanian
representatives increased Jews’ readiness to reconcile with
Palestinians (Harth & Shnabel, 2015).
Identity restoration outside the victim-perpetrator
dyad can also be accomplished through self-affirmation
processes. Supporting this possibility, Woodyatt and
Wenzel (2014) found that affirmation of the moral values
breached by the transgression increased perpetrators’
genuine self-forgiveness, which in turn facilitated inter-
personal reconciliation (see Barlow et al., 2015, for posi-
tive effects of moral self-affirmation on perpetrating
groups’ conciliatory tendencies). Also, SimanTov-
Nachlieli, Shnabel, Aydin, and Ullrich (2015)2 found that
the affirmation of dual conflicting parties’ agency
increased their mutual conciliatory tendencies. Future
research should further explore the conditions under
which third parties or self-affirmation interventions can
contribute to, or possibly hamper (e.g., by leading to
moral licensing effects), reconciliation.
In conclusion, unlike the study of conflict resolution
(in the sense of addressing concrete conflict-related
issues), the scientific study of reconciliation, both within
and outside psychology (e.g., de Waal, 2000), is relatively
young and requires much additional research. We hope
that research on the needs-based model will ultimately
contribute not only to increasing the theoretical under-
standing of reconciliation but also to developing practical
interventions to promote it.
Recommended Reading
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (Eds.). (2013). The Big Two
in social judgment and behavior [Special issue]. Social
Psychology, 44(2). A special issue about the two funda-
mental content dimensions that underlie judgment of social
targets, which integrates highly diverse lines of research in
social psychology and explains the rationale for subsum-
ing components that had been shown to be distinct (e.g.,
competence vs. dominance; morality vs. sociability) under
two overarching categories.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (in press). Intergroup reconcilia-
tion: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the
needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology.
An article that provides a comprehensive review of the
research conducted within the needs-based model’s frame-
work, including in-depth discussions of issues that could
not be addressed in this short article, such as the seeming
discrepancy between the needs-based model’s logic and
empirical findings pointing to the ineffectiveness of group
apologies.
Tavuchis, N. (1991). (See References). A seminal analysis of the
sociology of apology and forgiveness drawing from litera-
ture in sociology, philosophy, linguistics, philology, psy-
chology, anthropology, law, and religious studies.
Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Philpot, C. R. (2011). A criti-
cal review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and
482
a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy
Review, 5, 70–100. A social-psychological analysis of public
apologies, the pros and cons of using them, and strategies
that may bolster their effectiveness.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Union Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agree­
ment Number 2934602 (PCIG09-GA-2011-293602), awarded to
N. Shnabel.
Notes
1. This study did not directly compare the common-perpetrator-
identity and common-victim-identity conditions (i.e., it did not
test the prediction derived from later findings by SimanTov-
Nachlieli & Shnabel, 2014, that the first strategy should yield
more conciliatory tendencies than the latter).
2. This research also demonstrated that in non-conflictual con-
texts, group members prioritize their morality-related needs (in
line with Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto’s, 2007, findings regarding
the primacy of morality among group members), whereas in
contexts of intergroup conflict, agency-related needs become
prioritized.
References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2013). The Big Two in social
judgment and behavior [Editorial]. Social Psychology, 44,
61–62.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration
of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
3, 193–209.
Barlow, F. K., Thai, M., Wohl, M. J. A., White, S., Wright, M.-A.,
& Hornsey, M. J. (2015). Perpetrator groups can enhance
their moral self-image by accepting their own intergroup
apologies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60,
39–50.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cru-
elty. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be
liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial inter-
actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
248–264.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Primates: A natural heritage of conflict
resolution. Science, 289, 586–600.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimen-
sions of social cognition: Warmth, then competence. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.
Frijda, N. H. (1994). Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes,
moods, and sentiments. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions
(pp. 59–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal
of Peace Research, 6, 167–191.
Shnabel, Nadler
Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2008). Transforming trauma in the after-
math of gross human rights abuses: Making public spaces
intimate through the South African truth and reconciliation
commission. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.),
Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation (pp. 57–76).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harth, N. S., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Third-party interven-
tion in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutral-
ity and common identity with the other conflict-party.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 676–695.
doi:10.1177/1368430215583151
Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2010). Helping disadvantaged out-
groups challenge unjust inequality: The role of group-
based emotions. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), New
directions in the psychology of helping: Group-level per-
spectives on motivations, consequences, and interventions
(pp. 337–353). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue:
The importance of morality (vs. competence and socia-
bility) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.
Mazziotta, A., Feuchte, F., Gausel, N., & Nadler, A. (2014). Does
remembering past ingroup perpetration promote postwar
cross-group contact? Insights from a field experiment in
Liberia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 43–52.
McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the
forgiveness instinct. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999).
Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions
by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Instrumental and socio-
emotional paths to intergroup reconciliation: And the
need based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In
A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology
of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–56). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When
suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive
victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 351–374.
Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Noor, M. (2013). Overcoming com-
petitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through re-
categorization into a common victim or perpetrator identity.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 867–877.
Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of rec-
onciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of
victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Beyond need
satisfaction: Empowering and accepting messages from
third parties ineffectively restore trust and consequent
reconciliation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44,
126–140.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi,
D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfac-
tion of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating
group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030.
Agency and Morality in Reconciliation
Shnabel, N., Ullrich, J., Nadler, A., Dovidio, J. F., & Aydin, A. L.
(2013). Warm or competent? Improving intergroup relations
by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and dis-
advantaged groups. European Journal of Social Psychology,
43, 482–492.
Siem, B., von Oettingen, M., Mummendey, A., & Nadler, A.
(2013). When status differences are illegitimate, groups’
needs diverge: Testing the needs-based model of reconcili-
ation in contexts of status inequality. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 43, 137–148.
SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., & Shnabel, N. (2014). Feeling both vic-
tim and perpetrator: Investigating duality within the needs-
based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
40, 301–314.
483
SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., Shnabel, N., Aydin, A. L., & Ullrich,
J. (2015). Agents of morality: Affirming conflicting groups’
agency promotes pro-sociality towards the conflicting out-
group. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Towards a social psy-
chological analysis of politicized collective identity: Con-
ceptualization, antecedents, and consequences. American
Psychologist, 56, 319–331.
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and rec-
onciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Woodyatt, L., & Wenzel, M. (2014). A needs-based perspective
on self-forgiveness: Addressing threat to moral identity as a
means of encouraging interpersonal and intrapersonal restora-
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 125–135.