Scientists Say Forgiveness Between Rival Groups Starts With a Bigger 'Us

'Forgive and forget,' the saying goes, as if it were simple. But when whole groups of people carry a history of conflict, forgiveness becomes far more complicated, and far more consequential. A series of studies explored what actually helps groups move toward forgiveness and reconciliation with one another.

What the researchers wanted to know

At the heart of this research is a hopeful, difficult question: what helps groups that have hurt one another let go of that hurt and rebuild? Forgiveness between individuals is one thing; forgiveness between groups, communities, factions, sides of a divide, is another. The researchers set out to understand the psychological ingredients that make group forgiveness and reconciliation more likely.

How they studied it

Rather than a single study, this was a series of studies examining "intergroup forgiveness" among groups with a history of conflict. According to the summary, part of the work looked at forgiveness in Chile, mapping how it related to several psychological factors.

Studying group forgiveness in a real-world setting marked by past conflict is valuable precisely because it grounds the ideas in lived history rather than the abstract. Because we are working from a brief summary rather than the full paper, not every study and setting is detailed here, but the through-line is a focus on the mindsets and relationships that make reconciliation possible.

What they found

The Chilean findings sketch a revealing picture of what forgiveness is tied to. Forgiveness was linked negatively to ingroup identity, a stronger attachment to one's own group was associated with less forgiveness. But it was linked positively to a common ingroup identity, the sense of belonging to a shared, larger 'us' that includes the other side.

Forgiveness was also positively connected to "empathy and trust," the ability to feel with the other group and to believe in the possibility of good faith between them. The studies also flagged something that made forgiveness harder: what the researchers call competitive victimhood, or "the subjective sense of having suffered more than the outgroup." When one side felt it had suffered more, forgiveness was less likely.

Taken together, these threads point in a consistent direction: forgiveness seems to grow not from erasing group boundaries but from widening them, seeing a shared humanity, feeling empathy, and rebuilding trust. And in a later study that followed people over time, "forgiveness predicted reconciliation intentions," a hint that letting go of hurt can open the door to actually rebuilding the relationship.

What this means for you

Most of us are not negotiating peace between nations, but the psychology here scales down to everyday divides: families split by old grievances, communities pulled apart by disagreement, workplaces divided into camps. The research hints that when we are locked tightly into 'my side,' forgiveness gets harder. When we can find a bigger circle we both belong to, a shared family, community, or goal, the door to reconciliation opens wider.

It also underscores the quieter work that reconciliation depends on: empathy and trust. Trying to genuinely feel the other side's experience, and taking steps to rebuild trust, are not just nice gestures; in this research they were the very things forgiveness was tied to.

For anyone stuck in a long-running conflict, that offers a gentle roadmap: look for the common identity that unites rather than the one that divides, practice empathy even when it is hard, and treat trust as something to be slowly rebuilt rather than demanded all at once.

The honest caveats

Some clear limits are worth naming. This article draws on a brief summary rather than the full set of studies, so the complete methods, measures, and results cannot be reported here, and the findings should not be over-read.

The specific results described come from a particular context, forgiveness in Chile, shaped by that country's own history. Group forgiveness is deeply tied to culture and circumstance, so patterns found in one setting may look different elsewhere. The summary also describes associations: forgiveness tended to go along with things like empathy, trust, and a common identity, but that is not the same as proving one causes another. It is plausible the relationships run in both directions.

It is also worth being honest that reconciliation between groups with a painful history is genuinely hard, and no single study captures the full weight of it. Psychology can illuminate helpful patterns, but real healing involves justice, acknowledgment, and time that go beyond what any survey can measure.

Finally, this is social research, not therapy or advice for any specific situation. What it offers is a thoughtful, encouraging insight: that forgiveness between divided groups is not random, and that widening our sense of 'us,' extending empathy, and rebuilding trust appear to be part of how it happens.