First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people are the original inhabitants of what many now call Canada (Chartrand, 2002; Palmater, 2011). These diverse peoples have resisted centuries of widespread and harmful colonial practices, policies, and systems (Adams, 1989; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a,b; Government of Canada, 2018, 2020; Lux, 2016; Sinclair, 2007; Woolford et al., 2014). For example, from the 1830s to 1996, Canada and partnered religious institutions established and operated residential schools for Indigenous children (Fontaine, 2010; Fontaine et al., 2015; Joseph, 2018; Miller, 1996; Regan, 2010). The goal of the schools was to assimilate Indigenous children into Eurocentric ways and destroy Indigenous cultures. Historical records and Survivor statements indicate these schools were sites of abuse and neglect (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a,b). For example, thousands of children died in the schools, and at much higher rates than if they had stayed with their families, because of the poor conditions at the schools in which children lived (Corrado and Cohen, 2003; Wilk et al., 2017). Further, much subsequent research has illustrated the lasting harms associated with these schools (Elias et al., 2012; Bombay et al., 2014, 2011).

Canada is now on what is likely to be a long and winding truth and reconciliation journey in response to Indigenous peoples' resurgence and calls for justice (Moran, 2023). Our walk toward reconciliation thus far has been slow and involved many generations. One key step along the path occurred in the 1990s, when Survivors of residential schools (henceforth called “Survivors”), notably Phil Fontaine (CBC Archives, 1990) and a group of Survivors of Port Alberni Residential School, including Willie Blackwater (Blackwater v. Plint., 2005; Moran, 2023; Wright, 2016), came forward with their horrifying stories. Their disclosures inspired others to seek legal redress and Survivors did so in overwhelming numbers (Baxter v. Canada [Attorney General] et al., 2006; Moran, 2023), motivating the federal government and religious groups to pursue a class action settlement, reached in 2006. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (Baxter v. Canada [Attorney General] et al., 2006; Government of Canada, 2021) included a negotiated formal apology in the House of Commons (Government of Canada, 2008), a first, as well as several reparations for individual Survivors and communities, such as funding for what would become the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Government of Canada, 2022; National Centre for Truth Reconciliation, 2024a; Niezen, 2013). In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada ended its transformative work by releasing the Final Report (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015a,b) and 94 Calls to Action (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015c). The Calls to Action, along with other important guiding documents like the Commission's ten principles of truth and reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015d) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations, 2007; see also Hartley et al., 2010; Henderson, 2008; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act SC c. 14., 2021), chart a path toward a more just country. In the same year, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation was established to host an archive of Survivors' experiences, photos, and memories; continue the research of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and educate the public about residential schools' past and ongoing impacts on First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people (National Centre for Truth Reconciliation, 2024b).

In response to the Call to Action 65 (as well as 53–56), a small group of like-minded researchers and practitioners met in 2015 through the partnership and staff support of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to discuss whether and how to measure reconciliation. Reflecting the idea that reconciliation requires both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, approximately half of the team that developed the barometer was Indigenous (Anishinaabe, Cree, Haida, and Métis) and approximately half was non-Indigenous (Canadian, European, and other backgrounds). Now, our team includes more Indigenous than non-Indigenous members, but this ratio has remained relatively constant since 2015. Collectively, we have a lived understanding of Canada's colonial projects, and a deep understanding of many varied and rich Indigenous cultural traditions. Our goal was to create a way to track progress toward reconciliation in Canada because tracking progress can guide and motivate action. We considered a variety of complementary approaches and ultimately created a set of self-report questions that assessed perceptions of progress toward reconciliation in national polls with samples of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. With large samples, we have reported on the progress toward reconciliation widely, now twice. Our first report was covered in over 200 media publications nationwide. In the current paper, we detail the creation and some psychometric assessment of this measure.

In creating the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer, we have contributed to both reconciliation efforts and the literature. We contributed to reconciliation efforts by developing an understanding of what reconciliation means to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. We view this understanding as evolving and our approach as complementary to other applied and scholarly work, such as tracking progress toward fulfilling the Calls to Action (Jewell and Mosby, 2023; Indigenous Watchdog, 2024); tracking differences in outcomes for Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous people in Canadian education and health systems (Adelson, 2005; Layton, 2023; Melvin, 2023; Palmater, 2022; Statistics Canada, 2023, 2024); and Survivors, Elders, and Knowledge Keepers sharing teachings about reconciliation (e.g., Traditional Knowledge Keepers Forum, 2023). Our multifaceted and novel construction of reconciliation aligns with and extends existing models (e.g., Nadler and Shnabel, 2008; Shnabel and Nadler, 2008; United Nations Development Program, 2015) and pushes against the colonial status quo in psychology (Adams et al., 2015; Ansloos et al., 2022; Fellner et al., 2020). We hope our collective efforts can contribute to ongoing public discourse and progress so that everyone in Canada can live a good life.¹

To measure reconciliation in Canada, we must first understand what exactly reconciliation is. Part of the current project included creating a conceptualization of reconciliation, which was no small feat. The paradox of reconciliation is that it is at once a seemingly simple idea, and, as a United Nations Development Program (2015) framing paper argues, a “contested and controversial term.” Why do experts and stakeholders sometimes disagree? One reason is that the construct of “reconciliation” is multifaceted; some aspects are not directly measurable and must be inferred from people's self-reports or actions in what is most often an intergroup context, surrounded by systems. A second factor is that some perceive reconciliation as a process and others perceive it as an end-state, though we conceptualize it as both. A third factor is that the meaning of reconciliation varies across contexts—what constitutes reconciliation in one culture, country, or group may not in another, though some themes should commonly occur. Our conceptualization of reconciliation aligns with those coming from both academics and practitioners.

Our understanding of reconciliation is consistent with prominent social psychological theories, of which there are several. One influential theory is the needs-based model of reconciliation (Nadler and Shnabel, 2008; Shnabel and Nadler, 2008). According to this model, conflict is rooted in threats to basic psychological needs rather than in competition for resources (e.g., land; Shnabel et al., 2020, 2023). Emotional barriers, such as distrust in the other and threat toward the worth of one's group, prevent peacemaking (Nadler, 2002; Shnabel and Nadler, 2015). Such barriers can be overcome when both victims and perpetrators engage in the mutually interdependent processes of instrumental and socioemotional reconciliation. Instrumental reconciliation requires conflict resolution through repeated cooperation to reach common goals (Nadler and Shnabel, 2015). Socioemotional reconciliation involves the social exchange of commodities that perpetrators and victims value, such as restored moral image and power, respectively (Nadler and Shnabel, 2015). In an interactive apology-forgiveness cycle, perpetrators admit to past wrongdoings and victims grant forgiveness and, over time, in place of victimhood and guilt, victims acquire a restored sense of power and perpetrators a restored moral image (Nadler and Shnabel, 2015; Shnabel, 2018). Shnabel and Nadler (2008) suggest four ways in which socioemotional and instrumental reconciliation differ. First, the goal of socioemotional reconciliation is a secure, equal, and worthy identity for each party, whereas instrumental reconciliation aims to establish a trustworthy relationship between parties. Second, socioemotional reconciliation occurs relatively instantaneously after an apology-forgiveness cycle, whereas instrumental reconciliation proceeds more slowly as collaboration on projects builds mutual trust. Third, socioemotional reconciliation requires conflicting groups to address the past pain of humiliation, whereas instrumental reconciliation requires ongoing cooperation in the present. Finally, the goal of socioemotional reconciliation is an integrated identity or sense of “we-ness,” whereas the goal of instrumental reconciliation is peaceful coexistence. As is true for other similar theories, we agree with these ideas in principle and think this theory is a valuable one.

Our understanding is also consistent with a United Nations Development Program (2015) (UNDP) definition of reconciliation as “transforming relationships between people and groups in society as well as between society and the state, toward a future goal based on political, social, and economic inclusivity and fairness” (p. 9). This definition emerged out of a UNDP workshop organized in 2014 in South Africa to develop innovative approaches to sustainable reconciliation. Participants, one of whom is a co-author here, were approximately 70 on-the-ground practitioners (e.g., worldwide UNDP office representatives and non-governmental offices such as Interpeace), a small number of academics, and inter-governmental officials. A UNDP framing paper followed with several recommendations, such as that reconciliation can proceed top-down or bottom-up, sometimes simultaneously, and any barometer of reconciliation should reflect local concerns (Murithi and du Toit, 2015).

Compared to these definitions, however, our conceptualization of reconciliation is more specific and inclusive. Our work suggests reconciliation requires a good understanding of the past and present, acknowledging harm, and meaningful apologies. It also requires engaging with Indigenous communities and respectful relationships at individual and group levels. Key also is equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and thriving Indigenous families, youth, cultures, and languages. Lastly, reconciliation means respect for the natural world around us. Our components align with the principles of socioemotional and instrumental reconciliation but are situated within our Canadian context. This specificity reflects the culturally appropriate, bottom-up process through which we developed the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer. Our definition is also more inclusive because we contend that reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people also requires reconciliation with the natural world. This perspective represents the idea that we should live reciprocally and respectfully with all our relatives—animals, plants, rivers, and more.

In the following, we describe our rigorous process of item development through two nationally representative studies of participants living in Canada (Study 1: 592 Indigenous and 1,018 non-Indigenous participants; Study 2: 599 Indigenous and 1,016 non-Indigenous participants). Together, the two studies demonstrate the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer is a reliable and face valid measure of reconciliation in Canada.

Our goal in Study 1 was to develop a measure of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada and evaluate some of the measure's psychometric properties. We evaluated the initial pool of items for their factor structure and internal consistency within factors. Our study is preregistered at https://osf.io/b7s8g.

Importantly, we grounded the Barometer in Indigenous perspectives and several years of discussions, planning, and consultation predated our item writing (Starzyk et al., in preparation).² Our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers thematically analyzed the transcripts of sacred testimonies given by 100 Survivors to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Fontaine et al., in preparation).³ We also held focus groups and interviews with Elders, Survivors, and other reconciliation leaders across the country (Efimoff et al., in preparation).⁴ Finally, we reviewed other measures of reconciliation in Canada and internationally. This long and varied consultation provided the groundwork for the items we would write. We began discussing what a reconciliation barometer for Canada should look like in 2015 and started polling in December 2020.

Throughout, we learned much from Indigenous people about how to conduct research in a good way. For example, after receiving feedback from Indigenous Elders on our focus group question prompts, we ensured that the last question we asked would leave participants with a sense of hope. In writing the Barometer items, we also strove to incorporate and carefully apply the best practices from both Western scientific methods and Indigenous knowledges and voices. Thus, we carefully applied psychometric principles and methods (Furr, 2011) and chose to write the items from a strength-based perspective to avoid furthering damage- and deficit-focused narratives. Throughout, we kept Survivors and those who contributed to our understanding of reconciliation in mind.

The goal of the second study was to understand whether the factor structure we identified in the first study would replicate with a new sample and hold for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We did so by obtaining a very similar sample with the same final quotas and exclusion criteria as in Study 1.

The goal of the current paper was to detail the creation and psychometric assessment of the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer. After carefully constructing the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer, we established the excellent psychometric properties of the measure in two studies with large and nationally representative samples in Canada. Together, the two studies demonstrate the 13-factor Canadian Reconciliation Barometer is a reliable and face valid measure of reconciliation perceptions in Canada.

We believe these results will be of interest in multiple ways to those involved in reconciliation initiatives around the world. Survivors and perpetrators of mass atrocity, governments, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, not-for-profit groups, and academics, to name but a few. We believe evidence of the psychometric performance of the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer will be of particular interest to those interested in a rigorous measurement of perceptions of reconciliation because carefully designed measures of reconciliation are an important part of creating social change. Also, we believe our unique process of creating the items will be of interest to Indigenous academics and those involved in Indigenous research. Finally, we believe our novel conceptualization of reconciliation will also be of interest to those involved in reconciliation research. We expand upon these three pieces below in more detail.

First, careful measurement of variables that represent social change is important to establish our progress toward said change. Without a clear understanding of our status on a specific social issue, we cannot hope to know our progress toward social change. An understanding of our progress toward reconciliation, then, can help keep us on track by highlighting areas in which we need to improve and areas in which we are doing well. Such an understanding can help to motivate action toward reconciliation. This is the approach our research team is taking (Reconciliation Barometer, 2023). In our public polling reports of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada, we operationalize reconciliation progress on the thirteen factors in two ways: Higher scores represent reconciliation, as do agreement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents. To help influence reconciliation policy and programming, we share our findings—both areas to celebrate and areas needing attention—widely through our extensive and varied knowledge mobilization efforts, including public reports, academic pieces, mass media, and podcasts (see https://www.reconciliationbarometer.ca/links-and-resources/ for more details), as well as ongoing discussions with government at various levels.

Second, our process of item development was unique in multiple ways and is perhaps best described as reflecting Two-Eyed Seeing. Mi'kmaw Elder, Dr. Albert Marshall, describes Two-Eyed Seeing as “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 335). Rather than creating items through discussion with academic experts, as is the norm in psychology, we created items through engagement with Survivor statements, discussions with reconciliation leaders across the country, and discussions among our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. We were also guided by Indigenous perspectives as we refined questions, ensuring we used a strength-based approach, created items that assessed constructs relevant to reconciliation that were beyond the individual experience, and ended on a hopeful note. In some cases, we deferred to Indigenous perspectives, such as in our decision to retain the 13-factor model containing the Nation-to-Nation Relationships factor. The concept of Two-Eyed Seeing has gained traction in the academic world in recent years (e.g., Roher et al., 2021), but to our knowledge, the current study is the first to demonstrate the concept within the domain of psychometry. This approach resulted in a unique and novel conceptualization of reconciliation.

Third, our conceptualization of reconciliation reflects many aspects of Nadler and Shnabel's model as well as the UNDP definition of reconciliation. For example, our conceptualization, as well as Nadler and Shnabel's, includes socioemotional and instrumental aspects. Specifically, like Nadler and Shnabel, we put emphasis on concepts like trust, relationships among the two groups in need of reconciliation (Mutually Respectful Relationships factor), and apologies (Apologies factor). Similarly, our conceptualization mirrors the UNDP definition in that we include concepts like relationships between people and groups (Mutually Respectful Relationships factor and Nation-to-Nation Relationships factor) as well as concepts related to fairness (Systemic Equality, Personal Equality, Representation, and Leadership factors). We think, however, that our conceptualization of reconciliation extends existing models or definitions of reconciliation in important ways.

One way that our conceptualization of reconciliation extends existing models and definitions is that it pushes against the status quo within psychology. Though a fulsome discussion of the colonial status quo, and corresponding harms, underlying psychology is beyond the scope of this paper (though see Adams et al., 2015; Ansloos et al., 2022; Fellner et al., 2020), we think it is important to note that our work pushes against this status quo. For example, it is quite normative in psychology to strive to decontextualize research from the broader sociocultural and historical context in which phenomena occur (Adams et al., 2015). Even social psychology, which takes context into account, often disregards broader systemic and structural contextual factors in pursuit of universal findings (Adams et al., 2015). Reflecting the impact of the broader sociocultural and historical context on processes like reconciliation, we intentionally designed a measure of reconciliation from the ground up, rather than adapting an existing barometer of reconciliation. As such, we privileged the local context (Adams et al., 2015) and ensured our measure was appropriate for this local context.

Another way our conceptualization of reconciliation extends existing work on the topic is that we widen our understanding of reconciliation beyond the individual, and even beyond the species. Of particular relevance are the factors that assessed participants' perceptions of reconciliation in the realms of nation-to-nation relationships, systemic equality, and the natural world. A focus on factors outside the individual are important, especially given norms in psychology to situate the harms that come from inequitable systems as deficits within a person (Fine and Cross, 2016). A focus on maladaptive coping mechanisms within the individual, rather than the systems that create the need for such mechanisms, means that psychologists do not get at the roots of a problem. The benefit of expanding our conceptualization of reconciliation beyond the individual is evident when comparing our Systemic Equality factor, which has consistently had some of the lowest scores and smallest progress across time in the last two rounds of polling (Reconciliation Barometer, 2023), to factors that reflect those common to other models of reconciliation, such as the Acknowledgment of Government Harm factor. We contend that assessing both individual and systemic aspects, as well as aspects outside of the species, makes it more likely that researchers will gain a wholistic understanding of reconciliation in a Canadian context.

This work is not without limitation. Though we were able to obtain nationally representative samples for Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants on region, age, and gender through releasing quotas and weighting, no polling company in Canada was able to meet all of our requested quotas. This means we were not able to obtain national representation on some variables we thought were important for our research (e.g., living on or off the reserve, education level). Another limitation is the lack of representation of people in Canada living in the North. We will continue to encourage our polling partners to expand their panels to ensure researchers and pollsters can obtain samples that are more inclusive and representative, particularly of Indigenous people.

Over the course of several years, we designed the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer, embedding both Indigenous and Western research approaches throughout the process. Through two nationally representative studies, we established the excellent psychometric properties of the Canadian Reconciliation Barometer, for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants. This process resulted in a novel conceptualization of reconciliation that both reflected and extended existing models and definitions of reconciliation. We hope that researchers and professionals of varying fields will find the work helpful to measure and understand reconciliation in their own contexts as a tool to fuel social change.