Research

• Kljajić, M. The (Re)conciliatory Effects of Intergroup Acknowledgments and Apologies: A Meta-Analysis. OSF Preprint.

What are the causal effects of collective acknowledgments and apologies (hereafter CAAs) for wrongdoing on individual support for reconciliation in the aftermath of collective victimization? Over the past two decades, scholars have increasingly studied this question, arriving at mixed conclusions about the relationship between amends and reconciliation. Although some findings suggest that CAAs can foster reconciliation, others suggest that they fail to do so or exert a very minimal effect. This article reports the first meta-analysis of experimental research on this question, reviewing 58 studies conducted between 2008 and 2024 on nearly 10400 individuals across the world. The findings show that CAAs positively affect individual support for reconciliation, both overall and in terms of its specific elements (compromise, trust, tolerance, and forgiveness). While confirming the positive impact of CAAs, their effects vary widely. Among other factors, comprehensive CAAs do not necessarily offer improvement over partial ones, acknowledgments tend to outperform apologies, and CAAs offered by social actors are associated with more substantial positive effects than those initiated by political actors. Overall, this meta-analysis consolidates existing causal research between CAAs and reconciliation, examining how moderating factors affect this relationship, and highlights areas of future research.

• Kljajić, M. Does (Mutual) Acknowledgement Foster Post-Conflict Reconciliation?

Collective acknowledgment of past wrongdoing is widely seen as a crucial process of post-conflict reconciliation, yet the conditions under which it promotes reconciliation remain contested. A central challenge in many contexts of political violence is the presence of competitive victimhood, whereby each group claims to be the primary or sole victim. Collective acknowledgment in such settings becomes politically fraught and is often perceived through a lens of blame and denial. This study examines how different forms of perceived collective acknowledgment---mutual, ingroup, and outgroup---affect individual readiness for reconciliation in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina, a country long characterized by mutual hostility and a fragmented memory of the war. Using a pre-registered survey experiment (n = 559), Bosniak and Serb participants were randomly assigned to conditions manipulating the perceived prevalence of acknowledgment from their ingroup and outgroup. Results show that perceiving mutual acknowledgment significantly increases both general readiness for reconciliation and support for reconciliation-related policies. Perceiving outgroup acknowledgment alone has similar effects, while perceiving that one’s ingroup acknowledges responsibility does not significantly change reconciliation attitudes or support for initiatives aimed at fostering reconciliation. Additional exploratory analyses suggest that these effects may operate through increased feelings of outgroup understanding and more inclusive conceptions of victimhood. These findings suggest that mutual acknowledgment can benefit efforts to enhance intergroup reconciliation, even in settings marked by mutual blame and denial.

• Kljajić, M. Collective Acknowledgment and Meta-Acknowledgment in the Aftermath of Conflict.

Collective acknowledgments of wrongdoing are widely regarded as essential for fostering reconciliation in post-conflict societies. Yet such acknowledgments remain rare, particularly in settings marked by mutual denial. Across two studies (n=1658) conducted in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this research investigates how ordinary citizens perceive collective acknowledgment and whether correcting misperceptions can increase individuals’ willingness to acknowledge their own group’s responsibility for past war crimes. Study 1 (n=362) demonstrates a significant misperception gap: both Bosniaks and Serbs privately express willingness to acknowledge their ingroup’s wrongdoing at much higher rates than they attribute to others, especially the outgroup. Individuals underestimated both ingroup and outgroup acknowledgment, reinforcing the notion of widespread denial. Moreover, individual acknowledgment was positively associated with perceived ingroup acknowledgment and belief in reciprocal acknowledgment, suggesting that social norms play a critical role in shaping acknowledgment attitudes. Study 2 (n=1296) experimentally tested a bias correction intervention in which participants were informed about their ingroup’s or outgroup’s willingness to acknowledge. Correcting misperceptions about ingroup acknowledgment significantly increased individual acknowledgment, particularly among Serbs. Among post-Dayton youth, those born after the war, both ingroup and outgroup corrections produced positive effects, suggesting generational openness to collective acknowledgment. Disaggregated analyses reveal relatively stronger support for acknowledging outgroup suffering than for ingroup responsibility, consistent with the psychological difficulty of accepting blame. While the effects are modest, these findings suggest that correcting misperceptions may be a promising pathway to building collective acknowledgment and supporting reconciliation in post-conflict societies.

• Kljajić, M., & Nadav, S., Neighborhood integration and intergroup relations before and after conflict.

The impact of neighborhood integration on intergroup relations remains hotly debated, with most causally identified studies finding a negative impact of housing integration on intergroup attitudes. Using two studies based in the Yugoslav and Bosnian contexts, we show that living in more ethnically integrated neighborhoods can have a positive impact on intergroup relations, and that this effect can be long-lasting. Study 1 exploits a quasi-experiment created by Yugoslav housing policy and a matched sample analysis of two pre-existing nationally representative surveys from pre-dissolution Yugoslavia (n=15663) to show that individuals assigned to live in ethnically more integrated "socially-owned" housing had consistently more pro-social attitudes and behaviors towards non-coethnics than individuals in private housing. Study 2 uses an original convenience survey in contemporary Bosnia-Herzegovina (n=1898) to show that these effects persist even through the powerful countervailing forces of civil war. Overall,  our findings show that creating diverse and integrated neighborhoods can improve inter-group relations and that these effects may persist over time.

• Kljajić, M., Attias, N, & Halperin, E. Comparative Meta-Perceptions.

Democracies aim to channel social conflict constructively, but divisive political disagreements and distorted perceptions can threaten social cohesion and escalate polarization. Intergroup meta-perceptions—beliefs about what other groups think of one's own group—are a key factor in polarization, often negatively biased and exaggerated. While previous studies have explored the effects of (biased) meta-perceptions on polarization, they have typically done so in isolation, without comparing how different types of perceptions influence polarization. Using a representative sample of 1,132 Democrats and Republicans, we analyzed seven types of meta-perception (emotion, prejudice, competence, warmth, morality, dehumanization, and threat) and their effects on partisan polarization. Results show that both groups overestimate the negativity of the outgroup's beliefs, with stronger biases among ideologically devout partisans. Meta-threat, meta-prejudice, and meta-competence were the most reliable predictors of prejudice, social distance, cooperation, trust, and an aggregate index of polarization, whereas others were not. Exploratory mediation analyses suggest that feelings of disrespect, retribution, and reciprocity partially explain the association between negative meta-perceptions and polarization, but not threat, misunderstanding, or disappointment.